Poker players usually cant throw a chessboard at their opponents + unlike chess there are many opponents in poker so its far more dangerous
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
Mar 16, 2025
0
#5663
emilio1689 wrote:
Poker players usually cant throw a chessboard at their opponents + unlike chess there are many opponents in poker so its far more dangerous
Dave Ulliott (who was known as 'Devilfish') apparently used to bring a gun to poker games.
Part of survival. He also did prison time. (according to the net) -
Interesting player. And very high level.
I dont play poker and throwing a chessboard would be enough for me
Mar 16, 2025
0
#5665
playerafar wrote:
emilio1689 wrote:
Poker players usually cant throw a chessboard at their opponents + unlike chess there are many opponents in poker so its far more dangerous
Dave Ulliott (who was known as 'Devilfish') apparently used to bring a gun to poker games.
Part of survival. He also did prison time. (according to the net) -
Interesting player. And very high level.
Me and my uncle.... Went on down.... South Colorado .... West Texas bound.... (you can add the rest!)
Mar 16, 2025
0
#5666
FishThatRoared wrote:
playerafar wrote:
emilio1689 wrote:
Poker players usually cant throw a chessboard at their opponents + unlike chess there are many opponents in poker so its far more dangerous
Dave Ulliott (who was known as 'Devilfish') apparently used to bring a gun to poker games.
Part of survival. He also did prison time. (according to the net) -
Interesting player. And very high level.
Me and my uncle.... Went on down.... South Colorado .... West Texas bound.... (you can add the rest!)
I played poker in Oklahoma City but didn't get to Tulsa, Oklahoma during that trip - which apparently has a lot of poker.
Poker is a lot more 'dangerous' than chess.
In more ways than one.
------------------------
That usually shows when you compare movies featuring chess versus movies featuring poker or other gambling too.
Usuallly.
Exceptions?
The violent movie 'Revolver' with Jason Statham heavily featured chess.
But also had gambling.
Mar 21, 2025
0
#5668
tresequis wrote:
I won a Live Blitz game against an opponent ("monsieur") after I badly blundered and he badly blundered twice. As I was about to checkmate him he told me I was winning because of "luck".
I definitely didn't play brilliantly and my rating is low (about 1450) but he played worse than me so I beat him. For me, that's not luck.
I have also sometimes been called "lucky" after an opponent has dominated me positionally, but then made a blunder I have checkmated him.
Can you get lucky in chess? Or are there only good moves and bad moves?
Yeah, of course there is luck, such as a misclick (from your opponent) or your opponent doesnt see your threat, its skill/luck
Mar 21, 2025
0
#5669
Planet_CHESS0344 wrote:
tresequis wrote:
I won a Live Blitz game against an opponent ("monsieur") after I badly blundered and he badly blundered twice. As I was about to checkmate him he told me I was winning because of "luck".
I definitely didn't play brilliantly and my rating is low (about 1450) but he played worse than me so I beat him. For me, that's not luck.
I have also sometimes been called "lucky" after an opponent has dominated me positionally, but then made a blunder I have checkmated him.
Can you get lucky in chess? Or are there only good moves and bad moves?
Yeah, of course there is luck, such as a misclick (from your opponent) or your opponent doesnt see your threat, its skill/luck
That post is from 14 yrs ago...
Mar 22, 2025
0
#5670
MrMinecraftBlupBLup wrote:
Planet_CHESS0344 wrote:
tresequis wrote:
I won a Live Blitz game against an opponent ("monsieur") after I badly blundered and he badly blundered twice. As I was about to checkmate him he told me I was winning because of "luck".
I definitely didn't play brilliantly and my rating is low (about 1450) but he played worse than me so I beat him. For me, that's not luck.
I have also sometimes been called "lucky" after an opponent has dominated me positionally, but then made a blunder I have checkmated him.
Can you get lucky in chess? Or are there only good moves and bad moves?
Yeah, of course there is luck, such as a misclick (from your opponent) or your opponent doesnt see your threat, its skill/luck
That post is from 14 yrs ago...
Yeah, i know
Mar 22, 2025
0
#5672
what a goodly thing if the children of the world could dwell together in peace
Mar 22, 2025
0
#5675
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
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.
To reiterate:
You do consider the players and the results to be "in game factors".
You do admit that when players obtain success/failure (win/lose) by time expiration it is a real result in a real game.
You concede that there are occasions when such time forfeits are the results of factors other than the skills or actions of the players.
You admit that some such factors perfectly fit the definition of "luck".
Then in those specific games there is luck in chess.
If you wish to exclude any such factors from being "in chess" by definition, that definition is indeed part of your premises and claiming that you have built an unassailable line of logic to reach the conclusion that such "luck in chess" cannot exist is "begging the question".
mpaetz wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
mpaetz wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
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.
To reiterate:
You do consider the players and the results to be "in game factors".
You do admit that when players obtain success/failure (win/lose) by time expiration it is a real result in a real game.
You concede that there are occasions when such time forfeits are the results of factors other than the skills or actions of the players.
You admit that some such factors perfectly fit the definition of "luck".
Then in those specific games there is luck in chess.
If you wish to exclude any such factors from being "in chess" by definition, that definition is indeed part of your premises and claiming that you have built an unassailable line of logic to reach the conclusion that such "luck in chess" cannot exist is "begging the question".
There are leaps here that dont follow logically, non sequitur.. 'Influenced by' does not equal 'in'. Players ability to influence the game mechanics is an in game factor.. Their ability to influence can be in turn influenced by something outside of the game. You should look for reasoning to your definition of 'in game factors' elsewhere as this alone is not shown to be enough...
No other points were made in this post and the demonstrated dilemmas of your model still remain intact. For instance the example of internet connection that I addressed in my last post.. Its nice and concrete, Id like to hear how that works in your model with the externals being in game factors.
Mar 22, 2025
0
#5678
Wins and losses are essential features of chess. Whether or not you wish to consider them "in game factors" (your term, not mine) all chess players think winning/losing is an essential part of the game. Wins by time forfeit, resignation,, expulsion of a contestant for cheating or other unsanctioned behavior, or checkmate all show up as "1" on the scoreboard.
So sometimes a player achieves success "by chance, rather than through one's own actions or abilities". The win has been recorded no matter what the cause. Success was obtained through luck. If luck was not involved, how are such games won/lost?
I understand that you are saying that such success isn't envisioned in the idea of the game, but if we wish to be able to play chess in the actual world we must accept that reality doesn't always conform to our ideals.
taraniyer wrote:
what a goodly thing if the children of the world could dwell together in peace
"Goodly" is like "bigly", I assume. An affectation taken on to hide less cheery motives and agendas.
So when a baseball game is stopped by an earthquake, that means earthquakes are immediately to be considered a part of baseball, and obviously chess also for the same reason...? Extreme weather, alien invasions, cardiac events...chess can be played underwater, so scuba gear is also a part of chess if the depth requires it. Plane crashes, falling coconuts, intestinal parasites, serial killers and mass shooters, squirrel chittering, neutrinos passing through neurons just so...where does this end, exactly? Name something that is *not* part of chess by this premise.
Chess is the game itself, not anything external, not even tournament rules. clocks or other optional additions. To define it the other way around to the extreme of tying everything that be experienced by a person playing the game makes the definition worthless. You can apply the same vague definition to a stack of pancakes at that point.
> And don't worry about luck in chess.
Usually I dont worry, just sometimes I imagine how I would throw the chessboard into some extremely lucky opponents of mine if we played in real life
the kind of thing you're talking about there is more likely to happen in poker games.
Do poker players worry about luck?
They should!
Or at least be aware to use a better phrase.
Poker players are very aware of luck - and also cheating.
Chess has luck and cheating too.
But poker has more. Its also more predatory.
Chess has luck but most chessplayers are not betting on it.