There is no luck in chess. You punish a mistake your opponent made, that's skill. If you were about to lose and then got stalemated, it's an opponent's skill issue. You run out of time in a winning position, that's on you for poor time management. Really, there is no outside force affecting chess, crazy one might believe that.
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Jan 22, 2025
0
#3985
Regarding internal and external factors in chess - there's a lot of variation on who thinks which is which.
These five factors are Internal to chess games:
1) mathematical construct of rules
2 clocks
3) win-lose-draw results.
4) game
5) opponents
-------------------------------
The last two of the five are both subject to chance factors - connecting to the first three - which intrinsically have no luck factors but which are affected by or relevant to the last two.
So luck is heavily involved and internal to the game.
But external factors of chance and luck are also relevant.
There could be disagreement as to what is external too.
But external factors could be an infinite set of factors that could affect any game or the opponents or both.
Luck exists in chess and is both internal and external to the game.
But many might want to classify external factors as 'interference' rather than 'luck'.
I think one would find - if there was intensive study of arguments about this - that both sides are in essential agreement and the disagreements are mainly about semantics.
But not completely though.
Because of the constant everday issue of determining the future to the extent one can versus those things that one cannot control.
There is much 'essential disagreement' about such things.
And views on such could/would/do carry over to views on chess.
----------------------------
How do chess instructors address such issues with their students?
And do they get into 'philosophy for chess players' with students?
I think you'd find they mostly don't. They might do 'pep talks' though.
Top players study each other heavily.
They try to take the other player 'out of his comfort zone' a lot of the time although not all of the time.
That's part of the battle.
But that can't be prioritized all the time.
Jan 22, 2025
0
#3986
hebrides wrote:
The mighty Capablanca used to say: "The good player is always lucky".
Jan 22, 2025
0
#3987
WifiWizard wrote:
hebrides wrote:
The mighty Capablanca used to say: "The good player is always lucky".
Boris Becker said that too.
But he wasn't that 'lucky'. Later on that is.
Jan 22, 2025
0
#3990
Yes, if da chinese man did not make the mistake in the final match with gukesh it would have been interesting...... Gukesh's luck
Jan 22, 2025
0
#3992
Because you're twisted, luck is a cliche that is already questionable. Saying it exists in a game of skill is ridiculous.
Jan 22, 2025
0
#3993
PlayerIDC wrote:
Ok now I feel like they're downvoting me just for fun at this point
You're not twisted.
Suggest you ignore AGC's trolling.
Also suggest - don't concern yourself with downvoting and upvoting.
They're somebody else's buttons - like the block button.
So they can't control you if you so choose.
Jan 22, 2025
0
#3995
Optimissed wrote:
playerafar wrote:
'We'
"We are only'
Idea: everyone speaks for himself/herself.
You're speaking for yourself and I disagree with your suggestion. There are those who dislike "I" too. "One" often signifies the universal "one" i.e, we.
I think we shouldn't be so sensitive.
Maybe you should follow your own idea.
For a change.
But as is well known that's unlikely to happen.
Jan 22, 2025
0
#3996
It is established fact that you are very sensitive.
You know it too.
Now you want an endless loop verbal chess game that some would be right to object to.
You want to invest your time in defending your use of the word 'we' and 'we are only'.
A failed attempt to grab at phony authority.
So its now necessary to ignore you for now - post around you so as not to feed the ....
Jan 22, 2025
0
#3997
mpaetz wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
As you say yourself though the sources are external to chess. If we are going to agree that heart attacks are a part of chess, then there is no discussion to be had because everyone knows that would be luck. Why the discussion exists is because we should distinguish extrernal factors that aren't really a part of the game from internal things within the game rules. That is the only reason to have this discussion.
It depends on whether or not you consider actually playing the game to be "chess". If not, then game results and player ratings are meaningless. The concept of skill in chessplay is all about the players manipulating the pieces to achieve a desired result. That the result may be determined by factors other than the rules for piece movement opens the door to the possibility that luck can play a part.
I say that the sources of chance and luck are both internal and external to the activity of chess games.
But then semantics issues enter it.
Plus people might cherrypick about a power failure or crashing airplane disrupting the game and argue such extreme and unlikely external factors are interference not 'luck' and by premising on such cherrypicks try to build an invalid argument.
Jan 22, 2025
0
#3998
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
playerafar wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
@playerafar
Not poor enough not to beat your butt right now at chess. See, only I can call myself poor or else it's challenge words.
You see? (he doesn't)
You've got the 'I can spot you a rook and still win' mindset.
And again you're trying to 'give instructions'.
(thinking maybe Octo when he loses at chess wants a rematch - perhaps one of those very sore when his opponent refuses.)
Octo complained about others arguing.
Was it jealousy?
See you later Octo. Have a good day. I give you permission.
Just messing with you there mate, it was a joke. I do suck at chess.
Good to know that Octo has a sense of humour.
Mate?
Sounds Austalian. Aussie.
A word from chess.
Captain of the australian yacht. Playing his wife at chess who is First Mate too.
Its mate mate mate mate.
Jan 22, 2025
0
#3999
Once there was a cat. the cat was a junpei. he turn into a dolphin HELL YEAH!!! the cat exploded and died. the end. the end. the end!!!!!! The cat revived, and went to kfc. he ate chicken nugget
I think it's both because if you played good but you still lost, it's beacuse of skill, but of you're losing and your opponent blundered or didn't find the best move and won, it's because of luck.
What's wring with my opinion? Is there some invalidity from what I said? Two downvotes fo a decent opinion about "Is there luck in chess?". But it's the internet, nobody cares about anyone's opinion.
you don't deserve a downvote.
but I guess that means every move is luck and skill, from what you said. It doesn't really make sense.