Yes I believe there is such thing as luck because of one thing and that is blunders...
Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
I think what needs to be done is to seperate the terms "Chance" and "luck"
Chance:
- the game has no chance because it has no dice or any randomisers in it
when it's said that there is no luck, it should be there is no chance (that's the confusion)
Luck:
to show that there IS luck in chess:
you CAN'T influence your opponents moves (EDIT: at least not completely with the exception that you leave them with one legal move), lets say your opponent does something that gives you an advantage (such as puts their queen in danger) there is some skill invloved in that you take advantage of the bad move (like in this example take the queen) but the opponent making the move wasn't because of your skill (unless your saying you can control you opponents mind) so there is a small element of luck involved but only by how your opponent moves.
hopefully this should explain it:D
basically what I'm saying is:
there is no chance but there is luck in chess:D
Jul 29, 2012
0
#64
I think There is no such thing as luck in Chess. It's Just Skill. Not Luck.
If you consider your opponents mouse slipping causing an unwanted move luck then I guess luck is a factor. Winning one game because of an opponents slip is nothing to be proud of though. I was playing a guy who was using a iphone and because he hit the wrong button(his slip was obvious) I won. My record showed a win but had he not slipped he most likely would have won.
streetfighter wrote:
I think the main difference between the 'luck' gang and the 'no luck' gang is that one group is argiung from the viewpoint of chess as a game between humans, in a competitive environment of some sort, where extraneous factors (noise/tiredness/human weakness/etc.) play a part.
The 'no luck' people are looking at it from the viewpoint of chess only, the 'game' - which as many have rightly argued has no inherent luck factor.
I play chess - there is luck involved.
Well said CM Streetfighter.
I think I should keep reposting my original post until it sinks in...
on second thought...
Was it luck or skill that gets you the harder or easier draw in a tourney?
Have you ever figured out the best move for a position and another move that looks great, except for what happens a few moves later?
Then did you forget the move you planned to play and instead play the inferior move, that cost you an exchange?
I chalk it up to bad luck, if I am distracted, when my skills were able to have me figure out the best move, but I forgot I intended to play it.
DrSpudnik wrote:
It's not luck or skill
It's fate.
For me, saying everything is due to fate, causes me to conlude there can't be any right or wrong. If you can't escape your fate of wrong doing, how could you be rightly then held accountable? Certainly we can, because our fate is in our hands to some degree.
It's not fate? Then what am I holding exactly? Lousy con artist selling me crap...
Cherchez le chicken.
nameno1had wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:
It's not luck or skill
It's fate.
For me, saying everything is due to fate, causes me to conlude there can't be any right or wrong. If you can't escape your fate of wrong doing, how could you be rightly then held accountable? Certainly we can, because our fate is in our hands to some degree.
Ok I'll bite knowing that I shouldn't (this is somewhat interesting).
Your conclusion only holds if you assume that everything is due to fate without any influence of the individual and also assume that there is only one path to reach the event predetermined by fate. I ask you this: what if an event is predetermined through fate, but has multiple paths to get to that point? Then the idea of right or wrong still applies depending on the path the individual takes.
Okay enough of the philosophical and back to chess.
Actually, that was too much of the philosophical. Please don't let it happen again.
Conquistador wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:
It's not luck or skill
It's fate.
For me, saying everything is due to fate, causes me to conlude there can't be any right or wrong. If you can't escape your fate of wrong doing, how could you be rightly then held accountable? Certainly we can, because our fate is in our hands to some degree.
Ok I'll bite knowing that I shouldn't (this is somewhat interesting).
Your conclusion only holds if you assume that everything is due to fate without any influence of the individual and also assume that there is only one path to reach the event predetermined by fate. I ask you this: what if an event is predetermined through fate, but has multiple paths to get to that point? Then the idea of right or wrong still applies depending on the path the individual takes.
Okay enough of the philosophical and back to chess.
If you look at fate as inescapable predestination with no ability for us to chose what the parts of it's sum shall be, then my statement holds water.
If you look at it as, what happens to you is your fate, though you could have avoided it, then what I am saying still holds water and you need to go back and tell the other guy he did a inadequate job of wording his statement.
I stand by what I said. If you can't escape what is considered wrong by society, how are you liable? I have free will and know I am basically in control of what happens to me.
JoseO wrote:
only Time Lords travel through time. Even then they have to use a Tardis to do that.
Humans all travel through time and space. We only have certain resources for how we do...
What happens when you have the Tardis stuck inside the Tardis? What happens when the Tardis becomes a woman?
Might have to update that picture as now there are eleven doctors.
Yes but the last one has just been doing exactly the same as the one before him, so they pretty much count as one performance.
(O, those glorious Eccleston days...)
I think of chess not just as a game but as a total abundance of knowledge, being able to use that knowledge accordingly with successful tactics in over – ruling for total victory.