as perfectly reasonable as that is, it’s the butterfly flapping it’s wings that initiates the oncoming tornado.
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Mar 10, 2025
0
#5563
mpaetz wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
You and I both know events external to the game can and will influence the outcomes and I've provided exhaustive reasoning to why I believe its more logical to limit 'factors in chess' to game mechanics and principles.
You could lose a game on the board by check mate, or lose on time, both game mechanics, but a causal factor could be an excruciating appendicitis. Its harder to play in pain... Is it unlucky to get an appendicitis? Yes, nobody is denying that. But this medically significant event is not a part of game mechanics or principles... Not an in game feature but it happens outside of the game.
"You declare that time forfeits are part of the game, but NOT if something "happens to you by chance"; then use that distinction to "prove" that nothing can happen by chance in a chess game."
This is an unfortunate misinterpretation.
Happens to you during a game does not equal happens in a game, this is where the logic breaks down.
So we both agree that the actual players and their competition for victory (success) are part of chess.
We both agree that clocks and losses on time are part of chess for 99.9999%+ of chess games.
We both agree that all players, tournament organizers (that have time strictures), and national and international rule-making and regulatory bodies recognize ALL victories (success) by time forfeit to be valid results.
We both agree that factors other than "one's own actions and abilities" can and do determine who is successful in a chess game. That is the very definition of "luck".
My contention is that only on the very rare occasions when this occurs does luck play any part in chess. Luck is not an intrinsic element of the game, but ANY manifestation of luck deciding a chess contest means that all-encompassing declaration that NO luck can ever exist in chess must be incorrect.
This argument doesnt lead anywhere. I can go back and once again list all possible skills that can increase a players success in a chess game but still are not regarded as skill in the game of chess, not in your opinion or mine.... Round and round we go in this argument. A factor influencing a players success in a game does not automatically equal a factor in game. The logic has once again broken down at that point. So yes we agree, its dead obvious that many external factors can influence a player participating in a chess game in a way that can increase or decrease his success in the game. That however, is not the argument, but the argument is whether those external factors should be counted as 'in game factors' or not. Ive shown real world examples why 'influence on success' is a problematic criteria to rely on....
I'm not talking about factors "that can increase or decrease his success in the game", I'm talking about what is indisputably the sole cause of success or failure (victory or defeat) in a particular chess game, entirely eliminating any influence of skill. You admit that things we must admit to be "luck" can and do win a very few chess games. Why should we think that the proximate cause of success in a chess game was not a factor IN that chess game?
Those opposed to the reality of luck in chess are likely to ignore another reality which is whoever not having control of factors that produce good or bad fortune for them - in other words luck.
Playing with the words and phrases 'chance' or 'random' or 'random chance' or 'lack of skill' or 'deliberate interference' isn't going to change the realities of good and bad fortune - for which luck is an improvement from five syllables to one.
But more forlorn is the substitution of the phrase 'game mechanics' for events of good and bad fortune. With the user pretending to claim that just the existence of the phrase has some kind of logical force.
mpaetz wrote:
Of course many stalemates in endings are simply inevitable with proper play, so the player with the advantage was not "winning". The player who is at a disadvantage may display poor skill and still lose but no amount of superior skills can win a K+RP vs K ending if the lone king occupies the queening square.
That would be a draw, not a stalemate. And if you choose to play it out to a corner stalemate to avoid losing the RP, that is beside the point, and certainly not any argument for luck.
Mar 10, 2025
0
#5566
O fails again.
Not comprehending the meaning of the word 'could'.
Predictable failure by O. Ho hum.
Better posters than O will post - and get more response.
Optimissed wrote:
But a stalemate CAN actually be the result of random chance. Think about how.
You mean poor play by one or both players. Think about why. You might get it. Probably not.
Mar 10, 2025
0
#5568
DiogenesDue wrote:
superchess0088 wrote:
Ugh, did you play on a combination checkers and chess set IRL? That's the only time you usually see the awful red and black boards.
Dude let me like what i want
Mar 10, 2025
0
#5569
(And yes i changed my username the old one got kind of boring)
Mar 10, 2025
0
#5570
Bruh, can someone me just WHY DO PEOPLE RESIGN WHEN THEY LOSE THEIR QUEENS???
Mar 10, 2025
0
#5571
MrMinecraftBlupBLup wrote:
Bruh, can someone me just WHY DO PEOPLE RESIGN WHEN THEY LOSE THEIR QUEENS???
Mar 10, 2025
0
#5572
THEY LOSE LIKE... 8 elo ... there is no point in resigning
But... they help me get elo... so i aint complaining
I've won like 69% of my matches because of people resigning
mpaetz wrote:
It's also possible to play chess without boards and pieces. Does this invalidate those games where boards and pieces are used? Is the "touch move" rule therefore not part of chess?
You may speculate and argue endlessly about what should theoretically be considered "in" chess, but in the real world real people play real games under real, mutually agreed upon conditions, leading to real results certified by real chess organizations. Sometimes chance events unrelated to the players' chess skills settle one of these games. When that happens that is success due to chance rather than the players' own abilities and actions. That's luck.
Physical pieces and rules concerning them I would treat similar to time and clock, not a fundamental necessity but an established part of the game and we can treat it as such.... so accept the rules yes but a board breaking etc is not a part of the game.
Mind you.. Im not speculating at all, im approaching the question as factually and as logically as I can. Nowhere do I assume things but what I say is always based on something...
Real games, real conditions yes... which is why I have also taken an approach in this discussion to provide real world examples of 'skill/luck in chess' that demonstrate the importance of the criteria when defining 'in game factors'.
So the concept may sound abstract when I talk about it which it is, but it applies to the real world and how we talk about and think of chess. And if we are not logical about defining what should be in chess, well the world isnt gonna end, but the concept of chess will look real funky. It wasnt many posts ago I was listing those real world examples, like choosing internet would be 'skill in chess". We wanna avoid that not abitrarily but logically.
Mar 11, 2025
0
#5574
This is why u shouldnt resign...
You can always and im saying ALWAYS get a comeback.
MrMinecraftBlupBLup wrote:
This is why u shouldnt resign...
You can always and im saying ALWAYS get a comeback.
This ceases to apply at higher ratings.
Mar 11, 2025
0
#5577
Is there luck in chess?
Definitely.
Is there controversy about that?
Yes.
Who's 'winning'?
Everybody who wins a chess game they would have lost but got some luck in whatever form.
Happens a lot. And in other games too.
When is it minimal? In lopsided matchups like grandmasters playing C players.
But luck could still happen there.
Especially depending on how you assign 'extra definition' ...
'the C player was 'lucky' to last 40 moves even though he was lost from much earlier.'
Mar 11, 2025
0
#5579
Playandwin2011 wrote:
Давайте на русском
Means 'lets speak in Russian'.
Lets not.
It's also possible to play chess without boards and pieces. Does this invalidate those games where boards and pieces are used? Is the "touch move" rule therefore not part of chess?
You may speculate and argue endlessly about what should theoretically be considered "in" chess, but in the real world real people play real games under real, mutually agreed upon conditions, leading to real results certified by real chess organizations. Sometimes chance events unrelated to the players' chess skills settle one of these games. When that happens that is success due to chance rather than the players' own abilities and actions. That's luck.