Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

I think there may be some confusion between the game as played and the game as existing hypothetically as a set of rules.

You seem to be suggesting that chess exists "outside of life" and that every human is capable of interpreting any chess position in such a way that they have full knowledge of the outcome of the best way to play that position, if they are sufficiently skilled. It doesn't seem to take account of the apparent fact that even the best players or the strongest engines cannot plan an entire game continuation exactly.

One way to look at it is regarding predictability. If everything is as you say it is, shouldn't the outcome of every game be inherently predictable in a way that does not involve chance? I don't think that is proveable, though. Surely, your argument depends on a proof of predictability in chess? This attempt to separate chess from "life" seems like a leap of faith.

Unfortunately, I've just had my tea and with it, a couple of glasses of Gavi de Gavi, to please my wife. It means this is the limit of by ability to argue on this subject at the moment. If you have a retort, you can state it and I'll try to answer you tomorrow. However, there's nothing lost by an admission that you might change your position somewhat, if you think you may not be so sure as you were. I think that the main trouble is the attempt to seperate chess from life and to present it as something completely hypothetical, together with the impossibility of proving any hypothetical predictability of the outcome of all chess games.

someone wants this forum closed

You're lucky if you have the opportunity to play chess. Most people don't.

You think majority of people on earth don't have the ability to play chess? I would like to oppose that view and guestimate that more than 50% of the population has the ability and resources to learn the rules and play in some form if they want to.

OK so now you would have to prove that players' skill at chess contains no random or "luck" elements and again, it's impossible to prove that. You're making the claim, if it's reasonable to assume that randomness and luck exist everywhere in life. Again, you're more or less claiming that chess exists outside life. That's true where chess exists only as a set or rules but as soon as a move is played, it is no longer *just* a set of rules.

I just wrote a 75 word sentence. Time to stop.

@playerafar Yes, the rules could be called "the structure of chess" maybe. One important purpose of defining the structure is to completely exclude elements of chance that perhaps could otherwise be introduced via interpretations of rules. The rules, of course, specify a human input of choice, regarding the implementation of the rules of the game, which produces the game itself. We do not always make choices according to 100% rationally deductive processes and randomness does enter into all human choice which is not specifically following a set of rules as to how the CHOICE ITSELF should proceed or be executed.

If the above is correct, it means that at the very least, no-one can prove that randomness (and therefore luck) does NOT enter into the game of chess. Therefore, the assumption that luck does exist in games of chess should be much more difficult to refute than some people here wish to make it seem. There can be no simple argument which shows that luck does not exist in chess.

I also agree that computers and therefore engines are or can be subject to chance. I believe that I've known that to be true ever since I was experimenting with programming techniques in the 1980s. Obviously, back then, programming languages were less sophisticated than they are now but they were compilable and could work quite fast. I was interested partly in idiosyncracies of operation of particular languages being run on particular hardware, which made programming shortcuts available (for higher computing speed) which might not have been understood on reading the code, even by anyone familiar with the language in question. I know this is a bit off topic but it's one type of instance of apparently random variability when you apply specific software to hardware which might contain small variations in values of components etc.

Your argument here has been debunked before. The rules of chess absolutely do *not* call for or specify human decisions or players as a necessary input. Any being or machine capable of playing within the rules construct may do so.

Demonstrate luck in the game of chess if you have two perfect players. If there's luck in the game then even with two perfect players playing between creating new universes for fun, there should be uncertainty of outcome. If there is not, then there is no luck in the game of chess.

I am guessing you wrote that preamble after the fact, because you already know your argument falls apart and you are trying to shore it up in advance.

This thread has taken apart the definitions of "luck" and "chess" and even argued for what "in" means. But the statement above is incontrovertible.

Your position has always been to muddy the waters by trying to argue that chess is not a game of perfect information because of complexity. You would have it be Stratego, where the opponents pieces are enshrouded in unknown mystery...but no, everything in chess is right there in front of you. The fact that human beings are always going to be lacking the skill to play perfect chess does not suddenly introduce luck into the game.

Here's a statement you *can* make about chess..."When human beings play chess, they will make mistakes and carry along their weaknesses and inconsistencies, and so the outcome will always be uncertain". Humans are flawed. Those flaws are external to the game. Engines are flawed, those flaws are external to the game. Chess playing lower primates are flawed, those flaws are external to the game.

If you have two GMs that love blindfold simuls play a game of chess with each other, no board and pieces, just making the moves in their head, then you have a game determined only by the skill of the players and the external uncertainty of what may happen to *them*, since nothing can affect that game directly. Not lightning bolts, or tsunamis, or the paranormal, or chihuahuas, or...

The players can have cardiac events, or eat a bad burrito, or think about their failed marriages, etc. Your own recent anecdote proves my point here...when you supposedly saved the man having a heart attack outside a tourney venue, you ran back in and called for the clocks to be stopped. Why did you do that? After all, that heart attack and all the consequences are part of the luck of the game, right? So there would no reason to suspend play. Set a GM on fire in his chair during an endgame...why suspend play? It's part of the game, it logically must be to support the arguments of the "luck in chess" crowd. A modest pile of denim-infused ashes is small price to pay for the ease of mind of those who like to be able to claim luck, good or bad.

There is a lot of luck in chess. For example, if you lose a game because your internet cut off, then that is luck. And recently I won a couple of games because my opponents abandoned after only a couple of moves. So definitely luck is quite important.