Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

By "luck" I assume you mean happening by chance to choose a good series of moves and not the intervention of some supernatural agency? Have you ever heard that a roomful of monkeys typing letters at random would, given enough time, eventually write out the works of Shakespeare? In the same way a poor player making an arbitrary series of moves might just stumble on a combination that defeats a higher rated opponent, even a GM! However, the odds of this happening would become infinitesimal the greater the rating difference since there are so many more bad lines of play than good ones. 

CooloutAC - I'm not sure if I understand your reply. I must admit I wrote off the top of my head without reading all the other posts in this thread, but I understand that in chess each player selects the move and there is no inherent random factor in the game itself, such as the shuffling of cards or toss of dice. However, the choice of the move is at the whim of the player and that's not always determined by logic! If a weak player does not know what to do, he may just arbitrarily make a move, which may or may not be a favorable one. So, the element of a "lucky" choice does contribute to the outcome of a chess game! 

CooloutAC - I think I understand your point better, but I don't think "skill" and "luck" need to be mutually exclusive. I'm sure even grandmasters play games where they may have more than one move they think best and may make a very skilled educated guess, but the final outcome may be something unexpected! So is it not true that having a good outcome in the face of the unknown the very definition of good luck? Consider a professional baseball pitcher trying to knock down a bottle at a carnival. His throws are skilled, but maybe he misses 3 out of 4 times because of the difficulty. If he happens to knock down a bottle 4 times in a row and win the prize would you not say he was lucky? Also, if monkeys were competing in chess and their moves were random the most likely result would be close to an equal number of wins and losses. But if you plotted the results for a large number of monkeys you would find the results produce a bell curve, that is to say most of the monkeys would break even, but a small percentage would have mostly wins or loses! So you would have to say a monkey who has all wins was indeed lucky and skill had nothing to do with the results! 

CooloutAC - So by your definition even the slightest amount of skill involved makes it something based on ability and not luck? I guess good awareness and balance may preclude you from slipping on a banana peel and knowing not to stand in the middle of a golf course during a thunderstorm makes it less likely to be hit by lightning. So, if either of those unfortunate events occur it could be caused by lack of an ability to know how to keep safe rather than anything having to do with luck! As far as monkeys go, I think they could be trained to move chess pieces and perhaps even gain some rudimentary understanding of the game, but that was not my point. To make it truly random suppose we use something physics considers absolutely random, such as the decay of an atomic nucleus, to determine the move. Further, let's imagine the play is against a top-rated player. I understand that the random move generator has a low chance of winning. but the probability is mathematically not zero. So, if it does win it will have done so with absolutely no application of skill, just the randomness of quantum fluctuation. By your own definition this would be a chess game that was indeed won by luck!

     Are you seriously suggesting that monkeys have SKILL playing chess? That they know what they are doing? That some might achieve a rating of 600 at blitz? The whole point of the monkeys/Shakespeare example is that if you have a large enough number of random actions such as monkeys hitting typewriter keys or picking up and moving chess pieces, sooner or later, just by the laws of statistics, you will get a Shakespeare play or a GM-strength chess game. Sure, the odds are millions to one against it happening, but given enough random chances it WILL eventually occur. This is obviously random chance--ie LUCK. No monkey skill is involved as that is non-existent. So if Hiraku were to play a few million games vs monkeys sooner or later he would lose one through sheet luck. 

Arguing that monkeys have skill in terms of chess is meaningless unless you successfully train one.

The reason the monkey argument fails is monkeys don't "play chess", any more than your house is playing chess if something falls over and accidently moves a piece from one legal square to another.  Note that the collected works of Shakespeare argument (when quoted correctly) doesn't say infinite monkeys will write Shakespeare, it say that the works of Shakespeare will be produced randomly.

If you don't have:

- A game of chess being played according to the rules

- Two entities playing who are actively motivated to play the game

...then you don't have a game of chess, and ergo no argument about luck being any part of it.

btickler - Your argument seems to be that a chess game by definition has to be between players that have some degree of motivation and understanding of the rules or else it is not a game. Obviously given enough time there is a probability that stuff falling in a house could move pieces to complete all the chess moves in a game, but by your definition it would not qualify as a "game" since it would just be random occurrences. If you also think that if you involve any amount of skill or intuition, then you can't call it luck since they are defined as mutually exclusive. Alright, if you define the terms this way then luck would not be a part of chess! The validity of a statement depends on the initial definitions. I define a chess game as a series of legal moves that lead to a win, loss or draw regardless if there was any motivation or understanding of the rules. I define "luck" as attaining good results in the uncertainties of fate. So for me any chess game involves a degree of "luck" since chess is not a solved game! There is no argument, if I use your definitions then you are correct, accept my definitions then all games of chess involve luck!

Doesn't repeating the point make it funny somehow?  Or do you not even realize you are agreeing with me?

You are dangerously close to the monkey end of this equation.  

Absolutely not. None of them are. It's not as if people are arguing just to argue. You're completely wrong. 

That's a pretty good summation of the back and forth this thread revolves around.  I would accept your definitions, but I can't in good conscience because mine are better .

There is luck in chess, though, assuming you randomly select colors.

You're not wrong. I was just joking. You said the forums are becoming so argumentative, I said no they aren't. 

But I think part of the reason is serious chess itself is very argumentative. One side has to be right, and the other side has to prove them wrong. Other reasons too I'm sure, but chess seems to attract some odd characters. 

CooloutAC- It was btickler who introduced the idea about things falling in a house producing a chess move and you are the one who mentioned skill and intuition as components of chess! I don't see where I claimed "skill" and "intuition" to be equivalent or opposite. Neither did I say they were the same as "randomness" or "luck".  I'd say "skill" is learned ability and "intuition" is like a hunch. The monkeys and earthquakes are just representations of randomness, although "chaotic" would be a more accurate description of their qualities. Note that shuffling cards or rolling dice are not truly random either as results could be predicted knowing all the physical data involved. I brought up radioactive decay because according to quantum theory that process is completely random. As I explained to btickler if we start with your definitions of "game" and "luck" your conclusions are unarguably correct! I happen to define those terms different, but, as Humpty Dumpy says, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less", so there are no absolute definitions and the answer to "is there luck in chess?" depends on how you interpret the terms.

"I don't understand you, so please go back and re-read everything and try again to make me understand..."

Surreal .

He just got done saying what the two sets of definitions in play are (and in a clear and concise manner, despite the implication otherwise).  I don't think he is looking for new ones.

The problem with that is the notion that you think you get to choose the definition.  The definitions being debated are reached by consensus if there are multiple reasonable interpretations, but that is unlikely for this thread given that an impasse is always reached.

     But a person is NOT entitled to declare that their interpretation "that doesn't depart too far from previously accepted definitions" MUST be accepted by all other parties to a discussion as the ONLY definition to be used in said discussion. Peruse the unabridged OED and you will notice that almost all words have multiple meanings, some with just shades of emphasis, some with very great differences. Differences in usage can also vary greatly according to era and/or locality.

I went back to read the original post and what my comment on it now is might seem to contradict everything I said before. If I make a blunder and lose a chess game, I never will say it was because of bad luck! In a card game you may say you were unlucky and got a bad hand. In Scrabble maybe you got 3 "M"s and a "Q" and by bad luck you can't form a word. But in chess the positions are in front of you, and you make use of tactical skill, experience and intuition to make your moves. So, chess is a different type of game! If you make an error, it is on you, you have to take responsibility and not say your opponent got "lucky" because you blundered. You may be a master of chess tactics, but still be an inferior player if you fail to maintain concentration and blunder.

So is there no luck in chess? That may depend on how you define "luck". If we use CooloutAC's definition "Luck = Success or failure bought by random chance rather than through ones own actions and which can't be influenced by skill, such as practice or knowledge" then it has to be admitted that there is no luck involved in a chess game. I found this definition in Wikipedia and it is more in line on what I consider as "luck": "The philosopher Nicholas Rescher has proposed that the luck of someone's result in a situation of uncertainty is measured by the difference between this party's yield and expectation: λ = Y - E. Thus skill enhances expectation and reduces luck." So chess being an unsolved game there is a condition of uncertainty which skill may greatly reduce, but never eliminate. While it is more of a game of strategy and logic there still remains the chance factor in every game. Thus by Rescher's definition every chess game is partly won or lost by "luck."

     Perhaps you might take a break from criticizing and correcting others and look at what was actually said. Mr Cool always always insists that others agree with him and his point has been proved because other posters' opinions don't confirm to his definition of luck. The definition you quote. The definition btickler and I were disputing as the ONLY acceptable version.

Optimissed - A dictionary does often provide a whole list of different definitions of a word, and you can choose which you want to apply to the question. In the case of a chess game, I acknowledge the win or loss has mostly to do with the relative skills of the player. However, no matter how strong they are there is a limit as to how far they can calculate all the moves and strategies. For that reason, there is the random element of the unknown in every chess game, a series of moves undertaken on a whim for example, might just chance to lead to a won or lost game. I call this "luck." I'll state my own definition: Luck is a favorable outcome of a situation that is not fully determined by the skills and abilities of the individual involved.  If you apply this definition, I don't see how you can logically say there is no "luck" in a chess game. I like my definition, at least how it applies to game theory, but feel free to use another meaning of "luck" if you want a different answer.