Grobe's argument about knowability merely calls that randomness by another name. Once we know some of the causes of randomness we will understand the game better and get another step closer to solving the game. Until it is solved, there will continue to be randomness. Once the game is solved, the issue of "luck" will disappear completely.
True randomness doesn't have causes. I believe you are mistaking unpredictability for randomness.
When an opponent suggests that I got lucky in the game, I just agree with him. The argument usually dies at this point and I (and perhaps my opponent as well) can get onto more useful and enjoyable things in life, like playing another game.
One side note: Recently I was playing a blitz game here. My opponent declared that was teasing her/him since I didn't mate her/him fast enough. I wonder what would happen if s/he went to a tournament director with this point. Just how would s/he win that argument? What would s/he say: "I wanted to lose faster, but my opponent didn't let me"???
Barefoot_Player
There is NO luck element in a game of chess. The end outcome is determined by only how well/badly you and your opponent plays. A game of poker does have a luck element as chance plays a vital role as to what hand you are being dealt. I've read comments saying that you can't know the outcome in 10 moves, this is why you play your pieces to hold a strong advantage in position, if in the later game this amounts to nothing I would say your opponent has played well around your pieces.
THERE IS NO LUCK IN CHESS. THIS IS THE BEAUTY OF THE GAME.
Yes there is. You made a dumb move, and they didnt realize it is an example. Another is he just moved something out of position to make checkmate closer.
I must have to agree with both sides of thought because of the good points made, but like to give GlennBK 25+ for his commentary! Smart man!!
I tell myself no to the question. I mean, how does one differentiate luck from an opponents lack of skill? At least "lack of skill" is something I can get behind. Unless there's a random element involved (ex: dice), I don't believe luck plays a role.
Yes there is. You made a dumb move, and they didnt realize it is an example. Another is he just moved something out of position to make checkmate closer.
This is not luck, this is your opponent playing badly and you winning because of it, just because you didnt play well yourself doesnt mean it was down to luck. In a game of chess if you play better than your opponent (and consistancy is a part of playing well, not making blunders for example) you will win.
In a game of poker I could take on the top poker players in the world and perhaps beat them at a hand or two as I could be handed fantastic cards - luck. However, I could play a GM at chess and lose 100 out of 100 games, there is no way I can win a game against a far superior player as there is no element of luck that can favour me. It is only skill.
I believe there is a such thing as luck in chess. Specifically, chess tournaments. What opening does your opponent choose? What color do you have the most in a tournament (ie 3 blacks & 2 whites, 4 white & 3 blacks)? How many higher ranked opponents are in your section?
I agree with Ziryab .... there could be many things happening to your opponent at the moment of playing....or vice versa....
You make a move which you think is the start of a brilliant winning combination. Three more moves into the combination your opponent responds with a move that you did not foresee at all, and seems to completely refute the combination as you saw it, and now it seems to both of you that your opponent is winning. At this point you desperately search for a winning continuation, and happen upon a move of your own that you didn't foresee that allows you to achieve a winning position.
It turns out that at the beginning of the combination your opponent saw further than you did and saw a resource that you did not. We would say he played better chess than you at that point. But how did you win nonetheless? Luck. The combination happened to be winning, but you didn't see it all at first. Your opponent didn't either, but he saw more of it than you did. Your oversight was worse than his, but the position wound up in your favor nonetheless.
This kind of thing happens all the time, even at the grandmaster level. John Emms's book "The Survival Guide to Competitive Chess" is full of grandmasterly honesty about luck, bluffing, and winning when you don't deserve to. He would call the above situation a 'lucky oversight', and presents many of his own games as examples of these.
In this example the game is not won because of a difference in skill, but luck, unless we consider skill to be nothing but a rating. But doing this begs the question, assuming that in each game of chess the person who played better won, at which point there can then by definition be no such thing as luck in chess. You could give ratings to poker players too; that doesn't mean there's no such thing as luck in poker.
So yes, there is luck in the game of chess. For the original poster, that's not to say that it isn't rude to blame your opponents victories on luck.
Fate brings us choices and then we choose our fate....if we are lucky we will make the right choices.
In life and in Chess
The mighty Capablanca used to say: "The good player is always lucky".
You cannot look at the game of chess without examining the players. Even when two chess engines duel, one could say: "Well they're lucky they don't have to deal with the trials and tribulations of a real duel." The events of a person's life are constantly influencing their objects of thought.
The implication being that the bad player is never unlucky?
vamos jogar
There is an element of luck=unfortunatly a game can not be won on luck
A combination of both?
Yes, one of the clearer examples being this game, where Volokitin in a difficult position in the endgame is lucky that Sutovsky thinks 40 moves already have been played:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1485960
Card games and dice games hold a certain amount of chance so consequently are more prone to "luck". Not so in chess. The "luck" in chess, if it exists at all, is probably contained in a weak move by ones' opponent because of an oversight.
Do not expect much "luck" from a strong player, as they will only rarely offer such an oversight.
Depends. It is my understanding that luck has to do with something where odds are against, in this case, winning. So if your chances should be to win 10% of the time but you manage to win 20%, too me that would be luck. However, over the long run, "runs" like those would be evened out by periods where you win less than 10%.