Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Sort:
Ziryab
llama51 wrote:

Oh wow, with the kind of hint I'm looking at d5 of course... and if that's the solution it's a pretty cool idea.

 

Far cooler than I realized. That’s my argument for luck arising: intuition, or in this case desperation, sometimes works out very well. Other times it blows up in ones face.

What seems like a fairly simple and drawish rook endgame reached a position where White could strike a decisive blow and did so, but did so without understanding. However, when Black took the free pawn, White was back in his sphere of knowledge and ruthlessly exploited the advantage of being able to cut off Black’s king from the action.

Ziryab
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

Chess by design is a game of skill. But, a players skill rarely matches the depths and richness of the position. Sometimes even the very best must follow their intuition and their best guess. They may get lucky.

For instance, a couple of days ago I sacrificed a pawn simply to offer my opponent two ways to proceed, neither being the drawish rook maneuvers we had been doing for several moves. He chose a clearly wrong reply. But, even the better reply was dead lost. It took me a considerable investment of time in postgame analysis to see that even the move I thought retained near equality was dead lost.

My move was desperate effort to avoid a repetition. It turns out that it was far stronger than I imagined. There is an element of luck that I timed it perfectly.

 

For a GM, my sacrifice may be routine. For me, it was a desperate act that involved superficial calculation. A beginner might play it as a blunder (failing to see that a pawn is offered).

calculation none the less which means it was not random chance and not due to anything other then your own action.  Such as randomly dealt cards or a dice roll.   To imply otherwise is uninformed.   

Which is apparent with Lee,  and which Optimissed rightly pointed out,  since we must have different definitions of the word luck or  we must  have a different interpretations of the question posed by the OP,  therefore we can not have an honest debate.

 Calculation?

The beginner’s calculation that fails to realize that a pawn is being given up?

My mis-calculation that considered only the exchange of pawns and believed that I was not gaining anything? Calculation that was wrong. Even the pawn exchange is winning.

A GM would see further in this position.

White to move

 

 

 

Level of calculation is level of skill.  not luck.   Just admitting it was a calculation,  takes luck out of the equation.

 

The point: calculation barely came into play, and where it did it was in error (assessing, incorrectly, that the position was still close to equal).

Ziryab
CooloutAC wrote:
llama51 wrote:

Oh wow, with the kind of hint I'm looking at d5 of course... and if that's the solution it's a pretty cool idea.

In a speed game I would have probably auto piloted Ra6-a5 f3 and then stopped to think.

 

As Levon Aronian says,  in blitz its not always about making the correct moves its also about posing the hardest questions to your opponent.  And as Ben Finstein says, your accuracy is only a number in relation to your opponents blunders.  Doesn't mean luck is in the game.  Just means people are employing their own different strategies whether good or bad.

 

Good point.

llama51

"Sphere of knowledge" is a nice phrase. Makes it easier to talk about the idea of randomness  involved in results related to reaching positions you didn't plan on.

I remember once in a blitz game I made a bad premove and lost a pawn for nothing... but then I realized by advancing my pawn I'd cleared a square for my knight, and I plopped my knight down. The longer I looked at it, the more correct it seemed. I'd seen sacrifices like this before, but I'd never actually played one (much less in a blitz game)...

... and the funny thing is I was able to stare at it for a long time, because even though my opponent and I had been keeping steady pace, they were experiencing the same thing... i.e. shock at how lucky my good move was tongue.png

llama51
CooloutAC wrote:

as Ben Finstein says, your accuracy is only a number in relation to your opponents blunders.  Doesn't mean luck is in the game.  Just means people are employing their own different strategies whether good or bad.

The whole luck discussion has, IMO, been 100% played out. I have nothing to add or argue about happy.png

Ziryab

Once when I blundered a pawn in the opening, my much higher rated opponent played cautiously, thinking he was walking into a prepared variation. About move 20, he offered a draw.

Ziryab
ivandh wrote:

When I win, it is because of skill. When I lose, it is because of luck.

 

Eseles

The rules of chess contain no element of luck.

Gtrain27

In my experience there is no such thing as luck.                                                               -- Han Solo

                    

Eseles
byapoint wrote:

That's ok, because luck contains chess.

That's true. The rules of life contain elements of luck. And chess is part of life. So you can get lucky (or unlucky) in chess, just not in ways internal to chess (because there's no luck in the rules of chess) but in ways external to chess (a wasp lands on your hand as you are about to checkmate your opponent, you panic, play a blunder by accident, and lose instead)

technical_knockout

coincidence explains the 'luck' illusion.

Ziryab
GlennBk wrote:

You reach out an make a pawn move because you don't know just what to do. Many moves later that particular pawn proves invaluble. It could not have been foreseen. All the time we are taking advantage of luck from positions we could never have forseen.

Who can tell what the position will be in ten moves time. Answer nobody.

Chess is just like life you attempt to steer things for the best but the future is unknown. If the future was known then there would be no point in having any tournaments.

The better players merely guide the thing as best they can and avoid unbalance.

 

technical_knockout

guiding the game better than your opponent is a good definition:   😆

of SKILL baby, yeah!!

Eseles
CooloutAC wrote:
Eseles wrote:
byapoint wrote:

That's ok, because luck contains chess.

That's true. The rules of life contain elements of luck. And chess is part of life. So you can get lucky (or unlucky) in chess, just not in ways internal to chess (because there's no luck in the rules of chess) but in ways external to chess (a wasp lands on your hand as you are about to checkmate your opponent, you panic, play a blunder by accident, and lose instead)

True,  but so self evident it doesn't really beg any question,   also luck external to chess is not the topic of the thread.  which one has to assume is to distinguish chess from other games.

Yeah... Chess can teach players about taking responsibility for their actions, instead of blaming their luck.

 

2718a

The luck in chess comes from what color you get.

Ziryab
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
Ziryab wrote:

Chess by design is a game of skill. But, a players skill rarely matches the depths and richness of the position. Sometimes even the very best must follow their intuition and their best guess. They may get lucky.

For instance, a couple of days ago I sacrificed a pawn simply to offer my opponent two ways to proceed, neither being the drawish rook maneuvers we had been doing for several moves. He chose a clearly wrong reply. But, even the better reply was dead lost. It took me a considerable investment of time in postgame analysis to see that even the move I thought retained near equality was dead lost.

My move was desperate effort to avoid a repetition. It turns out that it was far stronger than I imagined. There is an element of luck that I timed it perfectly.

 

For a GM, my sacrifice may be routine. For me, it was a desperate act that involved superficial calculation. A beginner might play it as a blunder (failing to see that a pawn is offered).

calculation none the less which means it was not random chance and not due to anything other then your own action.  Such as randomly dealt cards or a dice roll.   To imply otherwise is uninformed.   

Which is apparent with Lee,  and which Optimissed rightly pointed out,  since we must have different definitions of the word luck or  we must  have a different interpretations of the question posed by the OP,  therefore we can not have an honest debate.

 Calculation?

The beginner’s calculation that fails to realize that a pawn is being given up?

My mis-calculation that considered only the exchange of pawns and believed that I was not gaining anything? Calculation that was wrong. Even the pawn exchange is winning.

A GM would see further in this position.

White to move

 

 

 

Level of calculation is level of skill.  not luck.   Just admitting it was a calculation,  takes luck out of the equation.

 

The point: calculation barely came into play, and where it did it was in error (assessing, incorrectly, that the position was still close to equal).

barely doesn't matter.  thats just your opinion on the level of skill.

 

Whose skill are we discussion my opinion about? How much do you know about this player? Why do you find your own opinion about this player’s skill more compelling?

technical_knockout

that can be erased by switching colors, but i have a better score with black.  🙂

Ziryab

White has an advantage, but I’ve never played a tournament where White won every one of my games. I have played a couple where Black won every game. Blame the French.

technical_knockout

i've a better winning percentage with black because of my counterpunching style...

JustBeatsy

Dunno about luck in chess. But it's bad luck to be superstitious... grin.png