Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

It's crazy how little it gets mentioned here that the core of chess rules literally enforces chance and luck to be part of the game.

Chess is a multiple choice question. So is lottery. Neither game requires any skill input for you to win, or better said achieve optimal result. The difference is that in chess following logic allows you to make more educated guesses. Fact remains that even the least educated guess in chess can be right, like is the case for all multiple choice questions.

Looking at it vice versa, you could have years of experience and an hour of calculation in a given position and you might still make a losing move against a random number generator.

Engines demonstrate this in a way: Longer think time by the same engine can sometimes produce a worse move than a shorter think time, because it's always just an educated guess. Human or engine.

If that's not fundemental luck for you, nothing is.

@Kotshmot
Yes.
'Educated guess'
Very good point.
-------------------
I think the biggest misconception could be to think that the variations in the opponent's skill level are subject to 'determinism' by the winner.
Some champions in some sports have the good sense to admit they had luck in getting better results than they expected at the outset.
I believe that Kasparov was the best chess Competitor the world has seen yet.
The most game. His opponents in for a very hard time.
In his 141st game and final championship game with Karpov - arguably the most pivotal chess game of all time ...
Kasparov switched up on his opening.
Karpov didn't play with his usual confidence and speed.
-----------------------------
Karpov was so close. Like with Schlecter-Lasker.
His chance to escape from the eclipse. Re-emerge as top player.
He knew it too. That was part of the problem.
And Kasparov knew that.
And prevailed in the end.
How easy is it to get that wrong and insist "Hey that was all about Kasparov's competitiveness - there was no Luck there'
But Kasparov might be the first to admit 'Hey it Worked. But that doesn't mean I 'determined' Karpov's final level of play. He wasn't quite up to it and that was fortunate for me.'
You'll find that great men are often aware of their good fortune.
Lavoisier was a great great scientist. But he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Was executed in the french revolution.
Other great scientist/mathematicians of the time happened to not be in Paris at the time.
They were lucky.
But maybe now: 'that has Nothing to do with chess!'
In other words trying to block the concept of how good and bad fortune works.
-------------------
Fatalism is too passive. But over-determinism is a delusion.
Reality is in a big grey area in between.
There's a pitfall there too though. Midpoint-ism. Which is another mistake.

This has all been argued to a standstill before, in this thread and other threads, multiple times.

Chess is a game of perfect information with no random factors beyond the initial color selection. Ergo, the uncertainties within a chess game are uncertain due to complexity and can be mastered with a sufficient amount of skill and knowledge. Whether that level of skill can ever be achieved by a fallible human being is utterly irrelevant to the question.

The proof is simple enough. If there were a 32-man tablebase for engines to refer to on demand, game outcomes by the engine(s) would be 100% predictable. Why? Because there is no luck in the game of chess to offset or disrupt perfect play (i.e. perfect skill). If there *were* luck in chess, then a 32-man tablebase backed engine would still have the possibility of uncertain outcomes. Don't conflate uncertainty via complexity or a lack of skill applied with random luck introduced by game design.

This argument is not really logically crackable, so might as well stick with the previous impasses if you are not convinced here.

i dont know

no, ur either skilled or bad, just like life. no inbetween, no luck, no excuse for incompetence.

Attaining perfect knowledge to make your choice you could argue is the objective of chess. The game design fails to demand for this, as how the multiple choice nature of the game works, a player doesn't require any ability or information at all to make his choice and achieve the best theoretical outcome. Attaining perfect information or no information can theoretically have the same result in chess - that' a part of the game concept.

I don't think theres ever been an impasse on this.

goodness what a load of nonsense

Consider participating on a forum you can contribute on the topic, maybe some "rate the profile above you" or similar.

Your "monkeys typing Shakespeare" argument doesn't really hold any practical weight. Maybe you should go back and argue on the old thread about whether a 1300 can beat Carlsen. I mean it's theoretically possible by your premise, and so makes a perfect gating mechanism...when a 1300 beats Carlsen, I'll consider your opinion on what's an impasse or not to be worth something.

Let's be clear for everyone else reading...you already know there's been an impasse, because you were part of each one, and eventually gave up posting, only to come back for a new round later. You have no love for my arguments, but have objectively made zero headway in the past.

This argument is one of language and definitions, but there's no refuting the point I made about playing chess with a 32-man tablebase being utterly free of random influences. Whether you think there's some human value to the struggle, or whether you want to misguidedly abstract the goal of playing of a single game of chess to represent a player's journey towards improvement are not the question at issue in this thread. Those are just fluffy sidelines.

As I said, this is all rehashing of past arguments, so unless you have something new to offer (and this was decidedly not), then I will talk to you when you do.

Your argument is "when an extremely unlikely event happens, then you've proved your point". It's not by my premise, you know as well as I it can happen that a 1300 beats Carlsen but most likely takes a few universe life cycles of time to happen. These are the fundementals chess is based on.

I fully agree that two 32-man engines playing each other is fully predictable event with no element of luck involved. However I think what you're missing is, chess with the rules and fundementals it has, doesn't require this perfect knowledge (or better: any knowledge) for an optimal result to be achieved. That's where the luck is objectively.

If for practical purposes one says full perfect game with 0 knowledge is not realism - its just an extreme example for illustration. One single move could be a more practical example, if you will. Endless of good practical examples could be made.

Chess as a game concept is a multiple choice question which allows you to arrive at any result with or without skill. A game without element of luck of course wouldn't allow this.

I agree on many practical points youve made on this forum, just not the main question. And sure there would be many more sidelines to waste time on.

That argument can be cracked instantly.
You're talking about hypothetical perfect play on both sides that has never been proved to have ever happened.
The discussion is about 'chess' - not some hypothetical setup.

The biggest pitfall in these discussions is to premise an issue about extreme or unlikely situations being 'the' issue.
To say - well if a Condor with 6 foot wingspan gets in the playing area and messes up your game and you lose then that was 'luck' for your opponent.
That's a bait and switch though. A decoy.
Much better - just talk about any chess game at any level with a winner and a loser. Draws can be discussed too but win/loss makes the point better.
Remove the extraneous instead of factoring it in - even though the extraneous also proves there's 'luck'.
To do it right you take a slice right out of the most essential chess games - the ones where the determinists try to argue there's 'no luck'.
Evenly matched players using a clock.
Lopsided matchups and clockless games are just red-herring it again.
---------------------------------
Are the two opponents weak or good or super-strong?
With two E players going at each other you're going to get fewer draws and again red herring it because then the Luck factor increases again.
------------------
So - minimize it and then examine that and you've examined the issue.
while remembering that 'chess' doesn't mean GM's playing each other although that's included.
Inclusion doesn't mean definition.
More progress there.
------------------------------
GM's (grandmasters) playing each other is a good starting point though.
Equally rated.
They are the two finalists in a prize money tournament.
They have a hard fought battle.
After 25 moves nobody has a clear edge.
After 35 moves neither GM's commentating nor engines extrapolating predicted the position at 35 moves from the 25 move point.
At 45 moves somebody gets an edge and ends up prevailing after that.
--------------------------
After the game the winner is asked:
"Did you 'determine' the outcome?"
Answer: "No. My opponent has often beaten me and me him.
His sustained level of play wasn't up to it today which was lucky for me so I won."
'In the position in front of you - through the game - you had 'perfect information' though."
Reply: "That doesn't mean I played perfectly though. It isn't like that. Important not to confuse the two"
--------------------------------------
Reaction: "I see what you mean. But this doesn't mean you pressed a slot machine button though. You had to play well to get through this."
Reply: "Of course. My opponent is very good. If I didn't keep up a high enough standard of play he would have destroyed me. But don't confuse this with 'determining the outcome'. Good fortune is part of the game no matter how much people want to argue that the chessboard and its piece-motions are 'mathematically Pure'."
--------------------------------
Interviewer: "I hear you. But what about games between super chess-engines and them drawing each other? Any comments?"
Reaction: " You mean the same model of computers playing each other with exactly the same software and programmer?"
"Yes."
"You're suggesting they played 'perfectly' against each other? That it was 'perfect skill?"
"I'm asking You."
Player-winner: "I'm not a computer-professional. But I know two facts. One is there's issues as to programming to play for a win versus playing for a draw and when. Second I know very very easily and 'perfectly' that a draw doesn't prove there was perfect play."
'That's all?"
"No. There's a higher percentage of draws the higher the level of chess you go and a famous player once said 'if nobody makes a mistake the game ends in a draw' but that's intensely intensely misleading. And in multiple ways."
'Can you name One?'
'I can name several. But I'd start with One.'
-------------------------
'Please.'
'easy to get it the wrong way around. A game ends in a draw but the two players and others going over the game quickly find that one of them made a game-losing mistake that was subtle but missed. And that's just for 'openers'.'
'Another?'
'Sure. No 'mistakes' quickly found. But remember 'mistakes' are subject to definition.'
'I don't get you. What do you mean?'
'A mistake that was detected in the game by the opponent'. For openers again.
'A mistake that was detected but not exploited accurately enough and the game ended in a draw. Some people even call that an 'error pair' but that's very misleading terminology again.'
--------------------------------------------
'No obvious blunder plus humans didn't find 'mistakes' after but the game was run through an imperfect supercomputer chess engine later and the engine found the game was chalk full of mistakes. Deep mistakes but it found lots.'
-------------------------------------------------
'Why are you saying the computer is imperfect?'
'Because no chess computer engine has ever been proven to be perfect. It would be like saying that astronomy isn't ever going to discover more galaxies.'
"I think I get it now."
"Got to go. My wife's gonna Kill me!"

The "chess is not a logical concept that can be rigorously defined, it's down and dirty in the streets" argument doesn't fly with me, sorry. The point is that if 2 engines with perfect information could play a game without any luck whatsoever, then any luck being talked about does not reside within the game, but with the players.

Agree to disagree.

As a sidenote, some people, ala piano man, believe that chess without human beings involved is not chess, but that argument is silly. You could just as easily talk about 2 sentient beings with perfect knowledge (i.e. god vs. god) and make the same conclusion. Thinking that human beings are the only possible chess players and so the game doesn't exist as a standalone construct without them is a conceit, nothing more.

@DiogenesDue
The players in the game are part of the game.
You want to premise that players aren't part of chess?
Again - your hypothesis is cracked. Instantly.
Nobody has to disprove anything about hypothetical future engines.
-------------------------------------
Regarding 'agree to disagree' there's another way.
And that is - it continues to be in disagreement.
Not by 'agreement'. No need. And no need to apologize either.
No looking by me for it to 'fly' with you.
If you don't want to argue - you won't.
If you do - you will.

My friend and I were having a discussion about this topic just last night. While we both agree that chess is not a game of luck, there are some things that are outside the players' control that could be seen as strokes of luck. If your opponent blunders, that could be seen as getting lucky, or like if your opponent misclicks while playing a rapid game. I don't think there's a solid answer for that question, to be honest. It all comes down to the definition of luck and what falls within that scope.

For a practical example I like to give the following scenario for food of thought

Player 1 makes a move and threatens check mate

Player 2 quickly sees a pawn hanging and he captures the pawn with queen. He neglects scanning the board and misses the check mate threat.

The move happens to be the only good move in the position as it also defends against the check mate that was missed by player 2.

This demonstrates how your evaluation could be wrong but you might still end up playing the perfect move.

Are you part of your car when you get into it and drive? If you sneeze and veer off the road and hit a tree, do you and your car suddenly become one entity that shares the blame as a whole? Players are not "in chess". They are interacting with a tool created to entertain them. Again, definitions.

I'll leave it at that. If you don't like the phrase 'agree to disagree" then let's just go with "I have seen your arguments, have argued the same points before, and don't care to spend more time on them". That being said, I will always drop back around if the topic drifts far enough and reiterate certain points for newer participants regardless of who might be involved.

Your questions about a car look rhetorical.
Like you don't want answers.
Again - 'one entity' looks like a red herring.
Its a driver's fault situation but can still be argued to be 'unlucky'.
When there's a two car collission insurance companies could assign 'percentages of blame'.
------------------
The fact that a car or car company can't be blamed in the instance you gave doesn't mean luck isn't a part of what happens.
In that scenario you gave - the driver is definitely part of the situation.
When would the driver not be?
Say a car is parked legally and perfectly in a parking spot and has nobody in it.
And another car hits it and both cars are damaged.
Is there luck involved?
Definitely. Bad luck for the owner of the parked car.
-------------------------------
And 'the luck factor' for the other driver depends.
He was drunk? That looks like drunk not bad luck.
Something happened that caused him to veer - like a dog or a pedestrian suddenly appearing in front of him ...
Definitely luck there. Bad luck.
---------------------------
And if he swerved and barely missed the other car - that's luck too.
Good luck. Maybe some skilled driving too.
Which doesn't exclude luck factors.
Another pitfall -
believing that intense skill factors present means luck factors go out the window and take a trip to the Andromeda galaxy.
It isn't like that.
Never will be.

I think there is a solid answer.
You don't have 100% control over your opponent.
Nobody ever will.
So definitely 'fortune factors' involved.
Fortune. Luck. Good fortune. Good luck Bad fortune. Bad luck.
No matter how much 'skill' by both players - relevant luck factors never go into an ether somewhere.
-----------------------------
How would physicists classify 'luck' as an entity?
They'd refer to sentience perhaps and say the context of luck occurs where subjectivity impossible for objects like rocks to have - is involved and therefore automatically premised.
Where does it get nitty-gritty? Can plants be 'lucky'? I'd say yes.
Why? Because DNA operates to survive. Natural selection causes that to be the case.
How might philosophers do it?
Three levels. Objects real. That which refers to objects real or attributes or behaviour of those real objects. That which cannot refer to reality. The ethereal.
So - reverse time travel is ethereal. Although maybe some would argue Kurt Godel who was Einstein's buddy proved otherwise.
I would say luck is in the middle category.
Refers to the reality of subjectivity in behaviour of DNA-based life.
another example of the middle category.
The color green.
Can you have 'green' without something to be green?
You know ...
-------------------------
could luck also be in the ethereal category additionally?
when its referering to something that can't exist why not?

I was talking to my god son today about basketball on how we always follow thru on plays to win on technique and skillset instead of relying on our opponents misfortunes or bad luck.

We would rather win with skill and honour when preferable but we will take the win on luck too.