Is no one seriously online bro... ive been waiting for a response for so long...........
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
MrMinecraftBlupBLup wrote:
Is no one seriously online bro... ive been waiting for a response for so long...........
You copy pasted a full essay by an AI and presented it as your own. People rather talk to someone who contributes their own ideas.
And yes people can easily tell but I also used an AI detection tool.
Your bio reminded me of this
i do believe there is luck factor in chess...some days you can get very lucky as opponent doesnt see ur blunder.
Mar 14, 2025
0
#5625
A lot of luck is definitely involved if 2 humans play against each other. Not so much if it's 2 computers.
Sebu13 wrote:
A lot of luck is definitely involved if 2 humans play against each other. Not so much if it's 2 computers.
absolutely true
Mar 14, 2025
0
#5627
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
MrMinecraftBlupBLup wrote:
Is no one seriously online bro... ive been waiting for a response for so long...........
You copy pasted a full essay by an AI and presented it as your own. People rather talk to someone who contributes their own ideas.
And yes people can easily tell but I also used an AI detection tool.
Your bio reminded me of this
I never said its not from AI.
Mar 14, 2025
0
#5628
MrMinecraftBlupBLup wrote:
Elroch wrote:
MrMinecraftBlupBLup wrote:
Chess is a game of perfect information, meaning all information about the game state is available to both players. There are no hidden elements or random events that determine the outcome, unlike games like poker or backgammon.
The Role of Skill: The outcome of a chess game is determined by the players' strategic thinking, tactical calculations, and ability to anticipate their opponent's moves.
External Factors that Can Appear Like Luck:
Human Error: Players can make blunders or miss opportunities, which can create situations that seem like luck, but are actually the result of human mistakes.
Opening Preparation: Players who are well-prepared for specific openings may appear "lucky" when they win in such scenarios, but their success is due to their preparation and not random chance.
Time Pressure: Time pressure can lead to rushed decisions and mistakes, which can also create situations that seem like luck.
Opponent's Bad Day: If a player is having a bad day, they might make more mistakes, which can seem like the other player is getting lucky.
Luck vs. Skill: While some situations might appear to be luck, it's important to remember that they are often the result of skill and preparation. A player who is consistently "lucky" is likely a player who is making better decisions and anticipating their opponent's moves more effectively.
The "Luck" of Opponent's Blunders: If a player makes a mistake that their opponent doesn't notice, it might seem like the other player was lucky, but it's actually the result of the first player's mistake.
Ultimately, chess is a game of skill, and the players who are most skilled and prepared will have the best chance of winning.
But, according to @playerafar there is luck in chess ...
I dont think that but ok, ...
Not a bad AI answer.
Bro just because YOU didnt type it does not mean its AI. But yea its AI, i wanted to see AI has to say about this topic then show it to you people
But ,these accusations in chess.com are getting on my nerves...
Just the other day i got reported because i did a threefold repetition draw by accident (can u blame me?).
Can u read this post? plz.
playerafar wrote:
VCY - nothing complex about losing internet connection.
Its very simple.
You lose.
Were you winning?
Bad luck.
-------------------------
Is there such a thing as 2+2= 4 ?
Hot news flash!
Yes!
Read all about it!
Over 5000 posts.
Coming up in Season 2 ...
Is there such a thing as .... Australia?
Yeah!
What a concept!
It really is Down There!
(in Season 3 we discuss whether there's sand at beaches.
There's quite a bit of controversy about that you know ...)
I don't know why you put Australia to chess like they ever related together.
An apple is a fruit because it is the same as the banana? While the apple and the banana is apart of different plant families.
What considers an apple a fruit? We should talk about its nutrients and its qualification to be a fruit, not the banana's.
Lagging out in a middle of a game (clearly luck based, no one affected the internet connection except divine intervention) is different from someone not knowing Australia, Russia, Germany exists (stupidity based). You can argue that a kid who doesn't know Germany compare to a kid who knows every country, dang that kid was lucky. No, its clear stupidity. If you don't know any openings but you still play then too bad who won't win, better learn more next time.
> If you don't know any openings but you still play...
Just like me 
Mar 14, 2025
0
#5633
yay you can get lucky in chess
suppose you participated in a tournament and all the other participants are dumbest chess players
like M.Carlsen
D.Gukesh
the roooooooooooook! and others
you will win the tournament in seconds
Mar 15, 2025
0
#5637
VerifiedChessYarshe wrote:
playerafar wrote:
VCY - nothing complex about losing internet connection.
Its very simple.
You lose.
Were you winning?
Bad luck.
-------------------------
Is there such a thing as 2+2= 4 ?
Hot news flash!
Yes!
Read all about it!
Over 5000 posts.
Coming up in Season 2 ...
Is there such a thing as .... Australia?
Yeah!
What a concept!
It really is Down There!
(in Season 3 we discuss whether there's sand at beaches.
There's quite a bit of controversy about that you know ...)
I don't know why you put Australia to chess like they ever related together.
An apple is a fruit because it is the same as the banana? While the apple and the banana is apart of different plant families.
What considers an apple a fruit? We should talk about its nutrients and its qualification to be a fruit, not the banana's.
Lagging out in a middle of a game (clearly luck based, no one affected the internet connection except divine intervention) is different from someone not knowing Australia, Russia, Germany exists (stupidity based). You can argue that a kid who doesn't know Germany compare to a kid who knows every country, dang that kid was lucky. No, its clear stupidity. If you don't know any openings but you still play then too bad who won't win, better learn more next time.
VCY - not 'logging out'.
Being 'logged out' because the internet connection failed.
And losing a winning game that way.
Your opponent gets lucky.
-------------------------
But you don't have to accept it.
No requirement.
And you don't have to think Australia exists either.
No rule or law requiring you to think it exists.
-----------------------------
The subject's beat to death already ...
But 'subject resolution' is not the only reason forums exist.
Its also so more and more people can post in the forum and express themselves and maybe beat the subject to death all over again.
Year in year out.
-----------------
No luck in chess?
You could claim there's no sand at beaches too.
Probably the staff would allow that discussion here ...
because for those who choose to not accept the existence of luck in chess -
why accept that there's sand at beaches or that Australia exists?
------------------
the forum topic name could have been written -
'is there some law we have to accept realities?'
Depends on the particular reality?
Only for those who so choose.
Somebody is arrested for drunk driving.
Says to his lawyer 'do I have to accept the reality of prosecution?'
Lawyer: 'Hey good one! We'll get you off on insanity. '
You'll be McMurphy without the lobotomy!'
Mar 15, 2025
0
#5638
TheBig5Xtreme wrote:
i do believe there is luck factor in chess...some days you can get very lucky as opponent doesnt see ur blunder.
Yes. Good post.
Luck in chess takes many forms.
But many people like to reject luck in chess.
The point is that nobody is required to accept anything.
Depending on how 'required' is defined.
So any view within chess.com's rules is allowed here.
Because the opening poster isn't active in this forum. He doesn't block.
------------
Unchecking the follow button works.
Can still find in the forum search by typing 'is there luck in chess'
like I did just now.
Who knows, if we were debating the existence of Australia, maybe that would be an argument you could win? Just make the thread Ill give you a run for your money. Or sand on the beach which ever you prefer. Maybe then we dont have to hear about either of them here.
When I talk about fundamental necessities to the game my view is a little more abstract than yours.. I dont consider practicalities of human play and learning to be a relevant criteria at the abstract level of fundamental mechanics of chess. Internet is a necessary tool for us to arrange playable conditions in such an intercontinental manner, but a game of chess can exist without it just fine. Thus, internet failing is simply humans failing at creating playable conditions for that particular incomplete game...
You consider my (practical) demonstration of the weaknesses of your chosen criteria "bogus"... But then again we discussed it for quite a few posts and I must say I'm not that bad at recognizing a refutation when I see one, but I didnt see one. What I propose is that you feel those real world examples are intuitively bogus.. but that is the fault of a faulty framework behind them that Im attempting to point out. In that framework theyre logical. And btw the broken board wasnt an example of such, different context.
Im definitely not disagreeing that in real world conditions random stuff happens, however as Ive explained I think its more logical to think that stuff happens outside of the game and just messes up our arrangements for the beautiful game of chess to take place...
Yes, chess games CAN be played without the internet, or clocks, or boards and pieces, but some games ARE played using such means. Does this mean those are not real chess games?
If broken boards cannot cause chess games to be won/lost why bring it up? How does it have any relation to the subject we are discussing? The same point applies to your other ridiculous diversions such as putting opponents into chokeholds to prevent them from punching their clock. These were all YOUR "chosen criteria", not mine.
You still admit that "random stuff happens" to decide the result of an occasional chess game. If those results are part of chess it is not a wild leap of imagination to consider that those random causes were in actuality part of those specific chess games.
Your "logic" fails due to petitio principii--the idea that you can START with the premise that "chance rather than one's own abilities" cannot result in success in a chess game, and therefore when such things DO occur those games cannot really be "chess".
Nothing I havent explained before, but none the less chess games arranged by any human method are real games of course.. but when that arrangement fails I feel it is more accurate to say its chance playing its part in the functionality of those arrangements, not in the game itself. Again we could choose not to do that and rather say an internet connection must be, lets say, an 'in game factor'.. Simply because it can be crucial for the players success in a game. Familiar dilemmas follow.. If one is to consider a random connection issue as luck in chess, then anything deliberate one can do to maintain or acquire a better connection must be skill in chess.. It is quite logical. The dilemmas stem from internet having nothing to do with game mechanics or principles.
What is the purpose of me mentioning the broken board? As I said in previous post, check context... It was mentioned in discussing the role of physical properties of a platform in relation to game mechanics and other fundamentals of chess. What I explained was that the physical properties serve a purpose as a tool that allows us to express our chess game in a physical manner, using our hands. The physical board introduces rules regarding how we are meant to touch the pieces, which are a part of other game principles in that context. What I wanted to say with the broken board was that even tho there are certain mechanics it governs, the properties of the physical material itself is not to be considered an in game factor... One of the pieces breaking, for instance, is rather the tool or platform once again failing (much like the internet), not one of the players just randomly losing a horse in the game..
"If those results are part of chess it is not a wild leap of imagination to consider that those random causes were in actuality part of those specific chess games."
It is not wild but rather understandable... what Im trying to do is unpack that view and propose a more logical version of how to define 'in game factors'.
And no, I dont start with such premise as you claim.. thats rather the conclusion. Thats not a logical argument but a false assumption of a premise I havent suggested.
Dude "broken board" and "Broken piece" are not examples of luck in chess those are parts of luck in reality.
Not chess