Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

G’nite folks. Time for the Blues show on KEWU.

I don't see the problem. I didn't include every definition, but a lot of them do include the word chance. Not sure where you get the despicably dishonest part, since I paraphrased. I said "pretty much the same thing". Which, it does say pretty much the same thing. 

There are going to be definitions that are slightly different. But they mostly seem to say about the same thing. Something random that happens by chance. It's usually said to be a good thing, but it can be bad too, like bad luck. 

And dictionary.com also says pretty much the same thing. Not every definition says it's something that happens by chance, and not every definition says not as a result of your own abilities. 

So when I say I make a move and rely on luck, I mean just that. I think chess has about the least amount of luck of any game I can think of. But there are times that I move for no apparent reason. No plan, no idea, not even a suspicion of what might be a good move. Sure I make the move, so I control the move. The other option would be to just stop moving and lose on time. But it's no different than tossing a coin when deciding. If there is no reason behind the move, I would say the result of the move is because of luck. Or chance. 

I'm not going to include every definition of luck, in every dictionary. I listed a couple that use the word chance. I really don't understand what your deal is. If you want to look up the definition,  you should. For me, using the word luck is pretty much the same as chance. So for me, there is a very small amount of luck in chess. Because there is an equal chance (in the situations I described) that I would choose one move over another. There is literally no reason. So if it turns out it happened to be a good move later on, I would call that good luck. 

Im sorry man but you didnt understand. Even if you choose the actions you take, but you cannot calculate the long term effects your move will have, luck is involved. The less your elo is, the less you are able to calculate and the more luck is involved. Its a simple concept.

Edit. I saw you compering chance and look and arguing about the definition. Chance is something you can calculate. As I mentioned before, luck is involved in chess because you physically cannot calculate till the end of your lines. Therefore luck is the correct definition to use.

If I were going to accept the luck in chess argument, this is the argument that is most convincing...however, luck in the context of game design is not the same as the general concept of luck.  In a game, you have a spectrum of skill that you design for (whether you want the game to harder to play or easier to play, like checker pieces vs. the more complex moves of chess pieces), and a spectrum of luck (whether you want the game to have random chances that remove the rigidity of pure strategy/skill, like adding Chance cards to Monopoly) that you design for.  The proper balance of these two distinct design parameters go a long way to determining whether a game is going to something like Chess, or something like Hungry Hungry Hippos...

These are not really directly tied together, in spite of most people on this thread following the notion that luck and skill are two ends of the same spectrum.  It's not luck vs. skill.  It's skill vs. lack of skill, and more in-game luck vs. less in-game luck.  When you play Chess, the element of luck is reduced to color selection, and unlike Chance cards in Monopoly, the luck inherent to the design of the game of chess is binary:  you either have the first move advantage, or you don't (or, you are a beginner that doesn't have the skill to realize that there is any first move advantage ...).

That leaves skill.  If a player (any human or engine) cannot calculate the result of best play after the chosen move they are about to play, they choose the best move they have calculated thus far, which is imperfect, and which requires N amount of skill, somewhere along the spectrum.  If a forced win (brute force mate or winning endgame, etc.) is calculated, then the player is making moves at the very top of the skill spectrum.  If a player cannot see the win yet, but they are making moves to improve their position, they are still high on the skill spectrum.  If the player is guessing between a few candidate moves, they are lower on the skill spectrum.  If the player is guessing "randomly" between all candidate moves, that is still on the skill spectrum.  The lack of skill is high, but the choice is *not* actually random and does not fit the definition of luck in a game, unless the player is actually allowed to flip a coin, roll dice, etc. among *all* candidates moves. 

The second you eliminate one or more candidate moves before applying the random selection, you have applied skill...whether that application is poor or accurate doesn't matter.  Only the truly random move selections could ever be called luck, and nobody actually plays chess this way...in fact, personally I would not call it "playing chess" at that point.   

Even a first time player will show skill in the their very first game, by pulling in learned skills from other games and endeavors:

- "If this pawn can move two squares only on the first push, that's an advantage I should consider using."

- "What was that castling move?  It might be useful now because my king is in the open right now."

- "I should probably not let this littler pieces capture this bigger, more important looking piece."

- "If I block my pieces with other pieces they cannot move freely, and freedom of movement is better."

- "If I can make a queen out of these pawns, I should probably protect them...and I'd better protect this one that is 2 moves away from promoting even more than the other pawns."

Etc.

All expressions of skill that a first time player can be capable of.

There are two concepts from the computerization of chess that apply quite well to this topic:

The PGN file format:  This format is designed to store everything you need to know about a game of chess.  It *is* a representation of the logical construct of a game of chess.  If you can't encode something in a PGN...it's not part of the game of chess, it's something external to the logical construct.  The PGN format was arrived at by consensus, and contains everything you need to store to instantiate a game of chess, and nothing extra (except comments, which are always "extra" in all forms of coding and ignored during execution/reading of the PGN).  Note that the two entities playing the game must be identified...and nothing else is required, because nothing else having to do with those entities is part of the game.

Engine "level settings":  Engines can be programmed to play "badly".  There are two basic ways this can be done:

1. You can reduce the engine's skill by discarding calculation in some manner, so that the engine just doesn't play as well.

2. You can introduce a randomly generated factor that causes an unpredictable move.

The first is an application of skill, the second is forcing luck into the game in a manner similar to rolling dice, etc. as explained above.  You can apply one, or both, or multiple applications of both in some sequence...but what you *cannot* do is enmesh the two in a single operation.  There's no way to do it in the code.  Why?  Because skill and luck are not on the same spectrum when you reduce the game to code.  Just like they are not on the same spectrum when you design a game.

     Just the opposite. Leixicographers are constantly researching actual usage and refining their dictionaries. Old definitions are changed, labeled secondary or tertiary, or even drop out of usage entirely. (Good dictionaries will still include obsolete meanings, noting they are "archaic" because they may still be encountered in old sources.)

     For example, the word "haunt" originally meant a place where people would commonly hang out, a noun and still used in that sense as in "his usual haunts". 

     Over time it became used to describe the activity of going to the "usual haunts" and so was also used as a verb, as "he haunts the local taverns", a usage now abandoned.

     However these meanings had been expanded in everyday usage to include supernatural entities, so places came to be called "haunted" and these spirits, (or "haunts"--a synonum for ghost) would infest places or bedevil people. A noun and a verb.

     Currently this last sense of the word has come to mean dominating thoughts or feelings, as "he was haunted by the thought of .....".  Definitions and word usage are not immutable.

I see what you are saying but this doesnt really counter my argument. Players calculate and make moves to the best of their ability, thus skill vs lack of skill are the main elements. Third element in chess like in almost everything has to be luck. In chess a lucky event is an event that neither player could predict x amount of moves ago, but happened as a result of their moves. This means a player can make a winning move without knowing the reason their move was good and end up in a winning position.

Even in case this move couldve realistically been prevented by the other player, I would still argue this can be considered lucky for the guy who ends up in a winning position. Other examples could involve a series of moves that is physically impossible to calculate for a human, but still result in an advantage for one player.

     Say, young man, don't sass your elders. (another Americanism) 

     Just pointing out that lexicographers aren't in the business of dictating or promoting proper grammar. They report what common and/or specialized word usage is. If poor English is being used, blame that on what the vast mass of English speakers are doing. Don't kill the messenger.

I agree.

This and the linked post serve as a recent example. http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-critical-position.html

Standard English vs. non-standard English. Common usage by the masses or common usage by the literate. Dictionaries have wavered.

Consider the breadth of what is considered sport by those with expertise vs. what the vast majority of English speakers believe. Should the dictionaries go with the majority? Or should they reflect the breadth of meanings in common usage?

I think maybe some definitions use the word force because it refers to something unseen or supernatural. I don't know. But there seems to be only a few basic definitions of it. Some say chance, some say force some say good fortune (or bad fortune). 

But they all seem to apply (in at least a very small way) to chess. Even though chess is probably a game that requires more skill than most there seems to be some chance involved. If luck is defined as a chance event that happens outside of someones control then if my opponent (whom is beyond my ability or control) makes a completely random move, for no reason, that would be luck for me. 

I don't know who said it but some notable chess player once said there is luck in chess. He said his opponent is lucky that he happens to be playing an idiot. 

I would pronounce that Youseeudge. 

Watch, someone is probably going to make that their name now. With a picture of an udge and everything. 

“A good dictionary reflects the widest possible breadth of common useage as well as unusual but extant meanings, sufficient etymology to be able to trace the derivation and also some prior, outmoded meanings.”

I think you mean priour, and outmouded. Y’knouw, since you louve spelling things like “color” with a “u”

That's not luck.  It's just an as yet unknown outcome influenced by skill (and/or lack of skill).  If we don't know the cause of lightning, then Zeus/Thor?  No, the parameters of the system don't change because the players cannot fully realize them.  Luck, in games, is not simply a perception based on lack of information.  It's a definable entity that is purposefully put into the rules.  If you want to write a poem about chess and toss luck around as a fuzzy term, have at it...that is also a definition of luck, but it doesn't apply to chess, the logical game construct.  Think of a game of  chess as a tiny pocket universe with its own forces and laws, self-contained.

Many people have the same notion..."a player can make a winning move without knowing the reason their move was good" and that means it's lucky.  Yep, and a lot of baseball pitchers cannot explain to you how or why they can throw a 100mph fastball.  Not the physics, nor the biology.  If they happen to throw a 106mph fastball one day but they don't know why, was it luck?  It's still skill.  Super GMs don't build chess engines, though clearly they should be best at it, right?  They don't know how to break chess down to its component parts, nor could they design chess from scratch...they just know how to play it, really well.

Be warned. Anyone who claims you were lucky or won on luck is a person who's feeling the sting of a bruised ego, and isn't mature enough yet to deal with it. Best to just block them and move on. 

Sherbet or Sherbert?

Chess is not as popular because it has a steeper learning curve.  A fact you amply demonstrate.

You repeated the exact same thing I said in the quoted comment of mine and then said I dont understand it. I honestly think you're missing the point of this whole conversation as you didnt counter any of the points that I made and give irrelevant examples (maybe you simply dont understand my points).

“So you can easily be a pro basketball, baseball or football player?   You probably couldn't even play at a schoolyard level my friend.   You are deluding yourself.”

Baseless ad hominem attack.

”Like Fischer told Johnny Carson once,  "Americans want to see the pieces move"

Racist.

”They want to find any reason they can so their conscience doesn't fault them for disrespecting the game or to feed their ego and superiority complex.”

Ad hominem attack.

You could make your messages so much more clear and concise and not insulting if you just cut out all that chatter.

You're arguing with thin air.  Your first two sentences are not even in the ballpark of anything in my post.

You did agree with me, though...chess has a steep learning curve.  Now take that knowledge, throw out all the other crap about why you think chess players are egomaniacs and you are a paragon of righteous virtue that will save the chess world from itself, and you might actually get somewhere .