Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

     YOUR answer to the original question is wrong. Simply saying that others must be suspicious or obstreperous or mentally ill because they don't agree with you is laughable. Who died and made you king? What makes you think YOU get to dictate the parameters of the debate and proclaim the "acceptable" meaning of words? You certainly haven't displayed any qualities here that would cause anyone to cede you such respect. 

    Your only argument is that things that don't happen very often don't really count. Absurd. Yes, the horrific happens in Las Vegas are not typical  of country music shows but the memory of that attack will live on IN country music, just as a plane crash (again atypical) still causes sorrow in country music fans who regret the too-early passing of Patsy Cline. Nor are presidential assassinations usual in the theater, but I'm sure you are aware of what happened--more than 150 years ago--to Abraham Lincoln. These remarkable events have penetrated into the public's mind and have carved their tiny niche IN the world of country music, or theater. 

     You admit that "luck in life can affect a match", ergo there IS that small sliver of luck IN chess.

Well that's probably not a very good example, but they do happen. Think of it like the lottery, you don't expect to win, the odds are very stacked against you winning the jackpot, but it has happened before. So even though it's very rare, you know it could still happen. 

So are mass shooting part of country music concerts? Sometimes. I think you should pick a better example though. 

if there's luck in chess, then there would be luck in general, and luck is a very controversial topic

Not as controversial as some topics, like money. But grandmasters say there is luck in chess. And since most grandmasters know more about chess than I do, their opinion is probably worth considering. 

True.

As far as i know, luck isn't scientifically proven, so you could say it doesn't exist

However, you can also argue that luck is real because what science cannot understand, it dismisses.

I keep praying to god to win the lottery and she keeps telling me that I need to buy a ticket.

     I originally used that shooting as example of how bad luck can strike from out of the blue and affect anyone at any time and no amount of skill was involved in who became a victim. Mr. Cool immediately declared that I believe mass shootings are part of all country music events and country music in general and has been harping on it ever since.

At least there's a chance no one has to meet him in one of those events from now on. I'd call that good luck.

Probably there's a black hole in your backyard.

I think one can talk about luck because it isn't possible to keep track of all possible interactions in the universe. But not as a force that can affect events itself. If a guy wins the lottery, you can say afterwards that he's been lucky, but he doesn't have any kind of gift that made it more likely.

OK. I didn't know who used the example first, but it doesn't matter. I suppose it could be a million other examples to make the same point. 

Even though I think it's not a good example, because it's so gruesome, the point is the same. Events like that are completely random chance, or bad luck, for the concert goer. And it happens enough to know that it's possible it could happen again. 

I personally dont think there is much luck in chess, but there is probably more than a zero amount. If even grandmasters attribute some of their outcomes to luck, it makes sense that some of my outcomes could be (in a small way) because of luck. 

https://www.wishtv.com/news/scientists-say-luck-is-real-heres-how-to-create-your-own/#:~:text=But%2C%20it's%20also%20a%20day,spent%20decades%20studying%20the%20phenomenon.

i found this.

this man studying luck for decades made an experiment, and as far as i can see, it proves absolutely nothing related to luck

People "considered" themselves they were lucky, it didn't prove they were lucky

Luck is really more related to psychology, i think.

or perhaps this website is a lie

the"wish" part of the website is a little suspicious.

As this argument goes on I feel the need to clarify my own thoughts on the issue and explain my viewpoint better.

First, if we go back to the original poster's question he mentions beating someone in a chess game after they blundered and they said he won because of "luck" and the question was "is there "Luck" in chess?" There are no randomizing factors in the chess game itself, no shuffled cards, no rolling of dice, so everything is there on the chess board and it is a battle of strategy and skill. If you blunder you have to owe up to the mistake and not say your opponent got "lucky", which is just poor sportsmanship.

But there is a second aspect of the question, looked at mathematically can you say there is "luck" in a chess game? Well this rather depends on how you define "luck" and how you apply that definition to the game. It has been mentioned that we should look for a current consensus of what the definition of luck is, but I am not sure if such a thing exists! I think the original meaning implied some sort of supernatural agency that brought good fortune, but nowadays I don't think we necessarily use the word to mean that. I think we would speak more in terms of having a good outcome in a situation that involves chance.

Now one of the arguments being made is that whether it is good or bad, when you decide on a move in chess it involves a level of skill, no matter how slightly, and therefore the move is not random and you cannot say it was a matter of luck. By this interpretation skill and luck are mutually exclusive in the game of chess. I cannot say this interpretation is wrong, however I feel it does not take into account the element of chance inherent in the game.

Many people would define luck as achieving a favorable outcome in a situation where the outcome was unknown and partly determined by chance events. I contend that by this definition chess does indeed involve luck and there is no need to invoke random outside events such as heart attacks or other disasters! I will make my case that some chance is involved in the play of the game itself!

Chess is not a solved game, when play starts no one know if black or white will win or if it will be a draw. The astronomical number of lines of play make it impossible to predict with certainty, the best we can do is give odds and say a higher rated player is more likely to win. In many games there are positions where there is a observable best move and the more skill you have the more likely you are to find it. This is an example that reduces the level of chance and you could state the more skill a player has the less he relies on luck to win! On the other hand often there are several moves that look good and you have to decide to choose one. The choice can be arbitrarily made, particularly when there are time constraints. It may or may not produce a a better position later in the game and so can say there is an element of chance involved since the results could not be fully calculated.

It might be said that how can there be chance involved when it is the skills of the players that determine the moves? Let's think about how the brain works to make decisions. Unlike a computer, logic circuits are not hardwired into the brain, rational thinking is something developed. The brain is exceedingly complex with like 300 billion cells and each of those are connected in a chaotic web of dendrites and synapses to one another, impossible to fully predict precisely how it will respond to every situation. In deciding between different chess moves the results might in some cases, where the strength of the respective moves is very close, be described mathematically as chaotic, impossible in their complexity to calculate what the move decision would be. Indeed, I suspect quantum effects could be possible, which, as the physicists among you know, are truly uncertain in their operations. So theoretically if we had exactly identical players is exactly identical situations playing chess the two games might not necessarily turn out the same! The game of chess is one of strategy, but does contain an element of chance since the moves cannot be fully predicted and neither can the end results be known from the beginning!

So although the odds are those of a snowball in hell there is still a chance that a low level player could happen to select the best moves and win against a grand master. The GM is the better player, but if he blunders and the beginner plays well the GM can lose! Maybe this would once in a thousand games or once in a billion, the point is the probability is not zero, the arbitrary selection of moves allows some chance to the lesser player and some would say this would be a lucky break if he wins!

.

dang

can i hire you to write an ela essay for me?

     The only things in chess that I have posited as undeniably due to luck are such events as a power outage causing a forfeit in an online game or a heart attack at the board in an OTB game. In such cases no player's skills were involved in deciding the winner/loser of the game.

     I have mentioned a couple of other ways luck can  e said to exist in chess but the aforementioned type of event is the only thing see as incontrovertible. I am open to considering others' opinions.

     So you admit that it was bad luck and that it happened at a country music show. Thank-you for agreeing with my point.

     No, what's telling is your admitting I am right about all of these things being luck. Now you desperately try to sidetrack the discussing and call people mentally disturbed just because they have an opinion different fr yours.