Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Sort:
lfPatriotGames
Ziryab wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:

That's your answer??? The entire gaming industry, as well as the people who have studied the matter are fraudulent and just doing it for job security??

 

Could see this in another thread.

Chess is a sport, as acknowledged by many sporting bodies from the local Spokane Sports Commission to the international Olympic Committee. 

At least that's an answer. I disagree of course because it conflicts with not only the dictionary definition but also the large majority of the population and many other sporting bodies as well. But at least it's an answer. 

His idea of an answer is to collect a bunch of words, shuffle them around, throw them up in the air and have them land randomly on the computer screen. I would say there is certainly a degree of luck involved in his responses relating to the actual question. 

DiogenesDue
TsetseRoar wrote:
btickler wrote:

...according to your interpretation of the "broad concept".

..that you just conceded is what "people" mean by luck i.e. that I am actually referring to the general definition of the word.

If you wish to claim that within the context of chess we are forced to narrow the definition (or even redefine it) then you need to give an argument why.

"Not a valid reductio ad absurdum, more of an appeal to extremes that doesn't quite get there.  If we were being consistent, we'd be talking about the game of chess and the luck designed into and contained within an instance of the game.  No lottery winners or deterministic universes to be had."

The argument works as is evident from the fact that you have just asserted that it doesn't work without giving any concrete reason. Or rather, the closest you come here to giving a reason is your argument that "luck" should be defined in a special way in this context, for which see my previous paragraph.

Oh no, it's Coolout junior. 

See, the definition of the word "concede" is *not* really a very broad concept.  It requires that I actually concede (and ideally that you acknowledge it graciously), not that you unilaterally declare it.  This is just a bad debate tactic you should have learned to avoid in Debate class in high school.

A broad concept allows for numerous narrower usages in various contexts...you can go dig up where I compare the word "luck" to the words "love" or "snow" and explain this, if you need clarification.  I don't actually need to personally give you yet another go 'round of why the definition of "luck" as it applies to game design is narrower, though.  That would require that I care to convince you.

Like the subject of your incredibly appropriate avatar, you seem to be narrowing your eyes at something that might be confusing you.

DiogenesDue
Optimissed wrote:

I've demoted myself as a team captain on the pretext that I'm tired. When you organise a chess club and do a lot of other stuff besides, as well as keep fit etc, you can get tired. Occasionally I would promote myself or another player that was feeling under the weather and off form, because the player is likely to lose to anyone on the day, so it may as well be a loss on board one. I would never have done that if the rating difference wasn't extremely close; within two or three points. Occasionally, I have constucted board orders based on losing the toss, putting those that perform best with white on even numbers ... and magically lost the toss. I was strangely successful as a team captain.

To cut a long story short, I believe I have deliberately avoided playing a GM, on a day I wouldn't have learned anything from it, in any case.

In high school I was board one, but only because nobody wanted to be board one...

TsetseRoar
CooloutAC wrote:

You have it backwards.  Chess IS indeed a game of chance.  FOr example you have a chances to win,  chances to make the right move, chances to get black or white etc...     But luck as per the definition applied to gaming means it is not luck if chances are created by human ability,  or if it does not determine success or failure.

No, I have it very much forwards.

Because, firstly, "game of chance" has a very specific meaning. For example, from the Wiki:

"A game of chance is a game whose outcome is strongly influenced by some randomizing device. Common devices used include dice, spinning tops, playing cards, roulette wheels, or numbered balls drawn from a container."

Meanwhile, "luck" is a broad concept and can include things like 1. true randomness, 2. events being outside of our control and, relevant to chess, 3. decisions made with incomplete information. When you make a move in chess in most positions, you have not calculated the move tree to every end node. So the information that you make decisions on is not complete. 

Kotshmot

Lets make this more concrete. Miscalculations in chess happen at all levels so elo is irrelevant in this argument, but to keep it simple for arguments sake let's take a beginner player in our example.

A beginner makes a queen move to attack a pawn. The move ends up winning the game for a different reason, one the beginner couldn't calculate before making the move.

If luck doesn't exist in chess, what caused him to win this game? Was it his skill level that topped his opponent? If so, explain how.

DiogenesDue
CooloutAC wrote:

Defies common sense.  Llama gave the perfect of example of how speedrunning encourages even more bad behavior,  because it is bad behavior in itself that you condone and approve of by defending it here on these forums.   Just another way of you to support denigrating the game and website you refuse to even play on,  similar to claiming it has elements of luck in it.

You're really just out of ammo aren't you?  Your replies are like deflating balloons.  Nobody here is seriously going to entertain the notion that I am denigrating the game of chess by what I have said.  That's purely your own delusion.

P.S. I played Votechess here for many years after I stopped playing other formats on this site (which makes sense, since there's no Votechess elsewhere).  I only stopped when a massive cheating scandal blew up the VCL (Vote Chess League) and I got disillusioned about the fact that every single top team had engine users on them.  Not that you would know or understand that Votechess games do you not show up your playing history...

Maybe it's time for you to just chill on the overreaching attempts to smear other posters and the chess community at large.

Ziryab

“Deflating ammo” sounds like one of Tom Brady’s footballs.

DiogenesDue
CooloutAC wrote:

my friend.  The only one with deflating ammo,  is the one who has given up on addressing and rebutting the points made and has resulted to doing nothing more,  then as insert has previously phrased it,  "ad hominem attacks"   lol.  

You don't have to tell us why you  re disillusioned with the game my friend.  You show your disdain for the game of chess everyday on these forums.    Defending speedrunners who encourage bad behavior in the community,   claiming speed chess is not real chess,   OTB chess is better the online chess,  that luck is in chess,   etc... etc.. .   is all ways for you to put the game of chess down,  or to put beginner players down in  the game you now refuse to even play.  These are all excuses you use to yourself to justify your behavior without feeling guilty about it.

IMO,  you are an example of what is wrong with the internet,  people like you can only exist freely online.

I didn't say I was disillusioned with the game of chess.  I was quite clear about exactly what disillusioned me.  That's just your disingenuousness, driven by insecurity, with a dash of poor reading comprehension thrown in for added flavor.

 

whilpool77

... missclicking, bad wifi make you abandon the game, going to get water and a sibling makes a bad move for you (not related to me in any way why would you think that), accidently closing the tab in a bullet game, etc.

What_did_I_do_wrong
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.

Wise answer. To simply put, The best of the players make their own luck. happy

noelliee

i think there can be luck in chess because if someone inexperienced makes a random move that happens to be good, isn't that considered luck?

What_did_I_do_wrong
noelliee wrote:

i think there can be luck in chess because if someone inexperienced makes a random move that happens to be good, isn't that considered luck?

Yes, I agree. Also if an experienced player makes a blunder and the weaker player wins, it's also because of luck. I agree with you. There is luck involved in every game for that matter. thumbup

What_did_I_do_wrong

It happened many times with me too. I was eating or drinking something and made a blunder and I lost because of that. So luckily my opponent won who was way inexperienced than I was. So luck matters.

Ziryab

When I make a move that forks a king and queen but the game ends in checkmate to my surprise, was I lucky?

noelliee
Ziryab wrote:

When I make a move that forks a king and queen but the game ends in checkmate to my surprise, was I lucky?

hmm, it depends on whether or not the moves leading up to that were on purpose or not.

Mugo345
Akshath0 wrote:
noelliee wrote:

i think there can be luck in chess because if someone inexperienced makes a random move that happens to be good, isn't that considered luck?

Yes, I agree. Also if an experienced player makes a blunder and the weaker player wins, it's also because of luck. I agree with you. There is luck involved in every game for that matter.

"Luck" makes no sense whether logically or religiously. I believe that God's plan (destiny) exists but free will also exists. You may think that is impossible, but I know it doesn't make sense in an earthly logic, but since I am Christian I believe that it is part of the great mystery of heaven and earth. I believe God created time, space, and destiny. So even though it doesn't make sense to us, it makes sense in the logic that since God (the universe, speaking non-religiously) created it to work in that way we cannot understand. So in that sense, "Luck" doesn't exist. Also, before you say God is not existant, think of this; Something/Someone had to have created time, and all the particles and matter. God isn't a sky wizard God (I state in the sense that God isn't a super natural being, but the universe itself. Therefore in the sense that I have stated; "Luck" is nonexistent. That is my philosophy, you don't have to agree, but think about it.

Mugo345
CooloutAC wrote:
Mugo345 wrote:
Akshath0 wrote:
noelliee wrote:

i think there can be luck in chess because if someone inexperienced makes a random move that happens to be good, isn't that considered luck?

Yes, I agree. Also if an experienced player makes a blunder and the weaker player wins, it's also because of luck. I agree with you. There is luck involved in every game for that matter.

"Luck" makes no sense whether logically or religiously. I believe that God's plan (destiny) exists but free will also exists. You may think that is impossible, but I know it doesn't make sense in an earthly logic, but since I am Christian I believe that it is part of the great mystery of heaven and earth. I believe God created time, space, and destiny. So even though it doesn't make sense to us, it makes sense in the logic that since God (the universe, speaking non-religiously) created it to work in that way we cannot understand. So in that sense, "Luck" doesn't exist. Also, before you say God is not existant, think of this; Something/Someone had to have created time, and all the particles and matter. God isn't a sky wizard God (I state in the sense that God isn't a super natural being, but the universe itself. Therefore in the sense that I have stated; "Luck" is nonexistent. That is my philosophy, you don't have to agree, but think about it.

 

Its hard to argue with this,  I guess its the root of destiny.  But it should  still make sense to people who don't even believe in God and think everything can be broken down by math.  I guess I can see why God is bought up in this thread,  since people are talking about an immeasurable force called luck.   Because all we can measure is chance percentages,  but that is not always good or bad luck.  And still we are only estimating.

Maybe it could make sense mathematically, or scientifically, but I mean, we are still only humans, so who are we to say? I guess this question might never be answered in a formal sense on earth, for all to understand. But I'm trying to say it's not that hard to believe in God, my theory (and i don't think I'm the only one with this theory) that God is not a super natural being like a lot of people think, I'm trying to say rather, God is the universe, God created everything, and I'm not asking anyone to believe, although I do, but just expressing in yet another way, that this mysterious "luck" cannot exist.

Mugo345
hebrides wrote:

The mighty Capablanca used to say: "The good player is always lucky".

a famous person can say anything and people will instantly believe it without question.

Ziryab
hebrides wrote:

The mighty Capablanca used to say: "The good player is always lucky".

 

Did he really say this?

We’ve been inundated lately with a lot of fake quotes from Capablanca. Quotes from lesser players, like Carlsen, are wrenched from their contexts.

Mugo345
CooloutAC wrote:
Mugo345 wrote:
hebrides wrote:

The mighty Capablanca used to say: "The good player is always lucky".

a famous person can say anything and people will instantly believe it without question.

 

I don't think he meant that literally though lol.  People interpret that to suit their own narratives.   But imo,  Capablanca treated chess like an actual sport.  He is one of the people that made a variant because he felt chess would become obsolete as theory got more advanced.  Much like Bobby Fischer.     He hated studying chess,  and was a one of the greatest natural talents in chess history who loved the art and style of the game.  

Its common sportsmanship to say I got lucky when you win.  Its the honorable and humble thing to say to your opponent to be sporting.  The reason he is emphasizing  the "good" player is always lucky,   and not the bad player.   He is also probably  conveying that when a bad player loses he always accuses the winner of getting lucky.    Like many of the people with superiority complexes in this thread do when they claim low level players only win by luck.     Capablanca, imo,  was calling out people like that for being bad sports.

Yeah, I know no almost no one when being interviewed means things literally (because often their just improvising theorys or jocking) but it's annoying how people take these things seriously only because they were said by a celebrity or famous person.