Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

I never said you could.   In fact I have debated consistency is how you determine skill.   But skill is determined in relation to other players not even just a single opponent or a single game.  And we have all seen how you agreed that consistency is a measurement of skill,  but contradictorily also say that it doesn't determine a pro skill level or an amateur skill level.   Because i'm now concinved you are simply here to argue for the sake of it.    But make no mistake friend.  I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I'm simply here to counter your false narrative for all those that don't know any better reading from the shadows.   And I will continue to do so till my last breath or I get banned,  because I feel it is for a righteous purpose that cleanses my soul.   You want to keep chess unpopular to feel special for playing it.   I want it to be more popular like it should be,  and to attract better personalities from society.


And since you wanted to ignore everything else I said like you ignore the rest of the definitions of the words we are debating,   because you feel it is unreasonable to even attempt to debate this.   Here is what you left out: 

"is because a single move doesn't determine sucess or failure in chess,  which is based on the goal of the game,  and can only be measured in relation to the opponent and rest of the playerbase.  Just because you can't base skill on accuracy in chess,  doesn't mean its based on luck.   With your logic someone employing a strategy to only pose hard questions to their opponents but by not picking the "correct" move according to engine analysis would mean they got lucky.   When really it was all part of their plan.     Again its a competitive sport even if they are just moving by educated guesses."

So just to be clear, you are saying that it is impossible to parse luck from skill from a single move? In that case we are in agreement that luck is a part of the game and so that any differences of opinion are just semantics.

The underlying reality is that chess is designed to be as close to luck free as is possible for a game...ergo, on the list of skill-based games, chess is near the top of the skill end of the spectrum. 

As I've said all along, chess is a skills-based game with elements of luck in it. It is a highly skilled game in which luck becomes a very small part of determining outcomes after sufficient trials. The fact that it is non-zero is all I have ever said.

Since you've defined luck as anything up to an including the universe blinking out of existence in the next 60 seconds, and make no meaningful distinction between luck inherent to game or external to the game

That's incorrect, see for example my post #727 "I don't even think you need to look outside of the game itself for luck."

or my post #788 "But that again has nothing to do with luck being inherent in the game itself."

or my post #800 "Yes, within the confines of chess itself, within it's very game design, there is randomness inherent in each move selection. You have a choice of a move, and before you ever put any thought into your move at all, there is a probability associated with each move."

or my post #999 "I agree that there is a difference and that the things outside of the actual game are not built in to chess. But that has never been part of my argument. My argument has always been that move selection, which is built in to the game itself, has elements of luck. "

the only examples of games with elements of luck are dice rolls, poker,  and deal or no deal.   Other posters have provided lightning strikes and banana peels.   None of these things are chance by design in chess and you prove yourselves wrong by claiming they are.       There is a reason we make this very distinction between games,  or why we even have definitions of the words.    You are simply in denial or have other motives for arguing otherwise.

I would also add besides color selection,  opponent selection.   But one could argue these two things are also not actually part of the game.

No my friend,  I have admitted you can't determine the outcome,  meaning outcome of sucess or failure from a single move. 

In your post #1004 you said "you can't parse luck from skill from a single move"

In your post #1011 you said "I never said you could [parse luck from skill from a single move]"

 You assume that lack of measurement means luck automatically exists. Which is illogical.   It is already understood before even determining level of skill,   that there are no elements of luck within the game design.   

This same flawed thought process can be used in reverse (in an obviously just as stupid way): if we lack a measurement for skill, then luck is the only thing impacting the outcome.

Actually, that is the baseline assumption. But the reality is we can measure these things. I know you think that statisticians are one big con job (your post #1005) but that is a large part of what they are paid to do.

I have given example after example.

A player (skill) making a strong move without knowing why the move is strong (luck). I.e. the result, the strong move, did not come about from their skill in selecting the move.

An engine who plays against another engine wins some games and losses others. In any one game, the engines did not get stronger or weaker. The outcome, the win or loss, is therefore not attributable to changes in skill. 

Haven't you heard interviews where top players say they were torn between one move and another and couldn't determine which they thought was better? Meaning they reduced their decision set (skill), and made a choice since one had to made (luck). Attributing that selection to skill (like saying it was their intuition that led them to their choice) is like attributing the selection of a suitcase in Deal Or No Deal to skill. The reality is the player would have been just as happy to have played the other move or selecting another suitcase. 

I stand by what I said bud.  

 I never said we lack a measurement for skill.   I have said quite the opposite all throughout this thread.   You can continue to ignore it like you ignore definitions of words to avoid having an honest debate.   And Just like assuming luck exists because we can't measure skill from a single move is nonsense,   its just as illogical to assume that stating otherwise is implying there is no measurement of skill altogether. 

Again, you only think it is " a baseline assumption"  there is no elements of luck in chess,  even though you can only give examples of such in other games,   because you don't even understand what elements of luck in chess means.   

And  Is this what you are left doing?  Trying to play gotcha and arguing semantics?  Sounds like double speak to me,  not a game I like playing.

1) A player making a strong move without knowing why the move is strong,  is still the players decision and action.   

Yes, just like it is a player's decision and action which suitcase they choose in Deal Or No Deal.

3)  Is exercised reflexes and muscle memory to you not skill but luck? 

Of course, that partly makes up your skill set. Outcome=skill+luck

And the difference here compared to every other example of elements of luck in every other game like dice rolls,  dealt cards, or deal or no deal.   Is all of those are elements of luck by game design and out of human control. 
That's not true. Human's control the role of the dice, the spin of the wheel, the selection of a card, etc. But we universally say these activities are based on luck because we don't attribute the outcome of the roll/spin/selection to the player's "skill" in rolling, spinning, or selecting. In chess, which is largely based on skill, we don't attribute the outcome of a move exclusively to the player's skill in selecting the move. 

First of all,  you aren't measuring skill if you don't already assume it exists.   

Where do you get the idea that I don't think skill exists? Quote and Post number. In my last two posts on this matter, I've said that both luck and skill are measurable. 

We are talking about discerning levels of skill,   not determining if skill is needed to make the move at all which is what you already called a "baseline assumption". 

No, I said a baseline assumption is randomness.

And no my friend,  you have not given any examples of the elements of luck within chess by any definition of the words luck or skill.   

The player who makes a good move and doesn't know why it is good is luck. As I've defined probably 10 or more times, I have luck as something akin to "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions". Since the outcome of the move is not a result of the player's actions anymore than the selection of a suitcase in Deal Or No Deal is a result of the player's actions, it is luck.

Because first you must learn the difference between them.  And you call any attempt to explain them,  unreasonable, 

No, as I've explained I'll take any definition which conforms to common consensus. If you give an impartial definition, such as one from a dictionary, or make a definition that is similar to what the rest of the world means when they use the word luck, I will consider it reasonable.

because you don't wish to have a dishonest debate.   

That's correct

1)  wrong,  because no amount of skill can change the outcome on deal or no deal.   A distinction you either can't comprehend or ignore on purpose.

1) so if you're the only one who ever argued this nonsense, according to your very arrogant and conceded reply.   Common among chessplayers just like being a walking contradiction is,   then  By your own logic your argument should be discarded since its not "reasonable"  or  "impartial".  

2)  Oh but here you are showing me that careers and books built around the subject of proving luck is in everything we do is proof they are right.   All the links you can't even explain in your own words,  just like you can't even explain your definitions of the words luck and skill.   Maybe their definition of luck is different.  Maybe they are cons.    What I gave you is the reasonable and impartial definitions of luck and skill.   In fact my definition of luck is the same as yours.   The problem is you deny and ignore them, and refuse to even show how they apply to chess.

3)  So now you say luck and skill are largely opposites,  but everything you do contradicts that because you can't even explain how they are different,  like I have done with my definitions that you call unreasonable.  

4)   Because by their very definition they are not planned actions,  which you call luck similar to a chess player making a move on the board he doesn't know is right or wrong.

Please try to number the points.  Stop trying to have a dishonest debate.   

1)  you have argued this. 

No I haven't. Give the quote and post # where I ever said luck and skill are the same thing

This is why you can't tell the difference between deal or no deal,  and chess

I'm very clear on the difference. Deal Or No Deal is a luck-based game and chess is skills-based game. That does not mean that luck isn't a part of chess.

2)     Once again,  we have the same definition of luck.   And my defintion of skill you already admitted to when you admitted intution, reflexes and muscle memory etc is part of ones skill-set.     ALot different then your vague definition of "doing something well" 

I don't really agree-- intuition, reflexes, and muscle memory are all examples of abilities which help to do something well. What is your definition of skill now that we are in agreement on the definition of luck?

3)  thats exactly my definition of luck.  Now what you should do is google the definition of chance which is part of it,   as the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design.   This is something you constantly contradict by saying a player moving a chess piece on the board is luck no different then rolling dice. 

You are misinterpreting what I am saying. I am saying that just because an action causes an outcome (a person rolls a dice and it comes up 6; a player makes a series of moves and it ends in a victory), does not mean that we think of the outcome exclusively as being a result of the player's skill. That is not saying that moving a chess piece is no different than rolling dice.

oh, that was just an appeal to reason in response to your "try telling a religious person there is no God" slight on Easter, btickler, with the rather obvious implication that us bull-headed zealots can be quite exasperating & obtuse:

1. "In the beginning, God created..."

2. "The universe has always existed, which is why expansion stopped, entropy increased to the point of total disorder & all the stars burnt out long ago."

3. "In a time-less, space-less, immaterial void... time, space & matter spontaneously generated whilst magically exploding into everything."

...let's use occam's razor to parse out:

unless you have a supernatural bias?

this is what a proof looks like:    😉

A.  there's a cause for everything.

B.  the universe is everything.

C.  there's a cause for the universe.

i see no problem with the 'cause of the universe' wanting to contact the creation:

...even though it was documented.    🙄

this is what a proof looks like:    😉

A.  there's a cause for everything.

B.  the universe is everything.

C.  there's a cause for the universe.