@LeeEuler
This is what I'd expect from someone who has spent their life with competetive chess. They take pride in their decision making, but still acknowledge the reality that they can't and wont rely on pure skill on every decision.
I don't agree with the last sentence though. I'd say a game is indeterminable due to inevitable variance in human performance, elo reflecting the average output. Luck is not a necessity in that function although in reality we know it plays a role as well.
Chess is not a game of luck. It is a game of strategy and tactics, which is skill.
Yes. Through fatigue, one could overlook a desparation mate attempt.
Sometimes, If You Blunder And Your Opponent Doesn't Notice. It's Definitely Luck Or Your Opponent Is Trash
Sometimes, If You Blunder And Your Opponent Doesn't Notice. It's Definitely Luck Or Your Opponent Is Trash
why does every word in your sentence start with a capital letter?
it looks like the only thing trash here is your grammar, lil bro 💀
No.
Yes, only when your oppoent mouseslips. I don't think mouseslips requires skill.
Luck is just a simple and short word used to refer to all random things that happen in chess games
Thought of my favorite thread as soon as I saw this Reti quote: "Chess is a fighting game which is purely intellectual and includes chance"
He joins a long list of master players below who understand the role of luck in nearly everything we do in life. Afterall, if a chess game is purely reflective of player's ability (e.g. "the stronger player is the one who won the game, since each player was completely in control of their move selection"), then one must acquiesce that the outcome of a coinflip in a vacuum is also purely reflective of a flipper's ability, since they are also in complete control of how they flip the coin.
1) Carlsen himself said here that, “I think the world cup is pretty overrated seeing as it’s such a small sample size so it sort of annoys me when titles are always appreciated so much even though that particular title can be a lot of luck or at least some luck”
2) Fabiano wrote here that, "There is definitely an element of chance in any individual chess game or tournament"
3) Giri here (around 35:26) said , "In this event in the last two days I have to say I've never been this lucky before, it really fell my way like more than ever. Indeed it was just like a pure coincidence that I managed to win in the end.”
4) Finegold here (around 6:41) said, "There's a lot of luck in chess, which is hard to explain to the gawking rabble”
5) Korobov says around 1:15 here that, "Okay, that was a big fight. We were lucky of course, but without luck, no serious result is possible… unless you’re Magnus Carlsen.”
6) Benjamin Bok, after swindling a stalemate against Carlsen, wrote, ““I did not see the stalemate idea from afar, I just got as lucky as you can be”
Seems like they all grasp that since chess requires the selection of a move, and there only finitely many legal moves to choose from, that the selection of a good/bad move is not a wholly representative expression of player skill. They also likely understand that when conditioning on player strength, there are only a small number of "critical" positions in any single game-- two similarly matched GMs would both filter down to the same few candidate moves but might end up selecting different moves from their candidates. Hence why the long-run average of two similarly matched players will reflect their ELO imbalance, but the outcome of any single game is indeterminable (this is pretty much the definition of luck; the behavior is exactly that of a coin flip).