Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

What if you like to move second and your opponent likes to move first? Who's luckier??

You wouldn't be so fast to try to discredit it. My observations are completely reasonable, however.

A post or two ago, you tried to discredit or deflect my answer to your comments to me, on my post, by telling me that you were addressing them to Kowenerai. Five or so years ago, being met by this kind of thing took me by surprise. Anyway, at that time, my family members were in the midst of dying and other things and so I had my mind on other things. Now history is repeating itself.

I know now exactly why you have always been so keen to discredit my high IQ. And to tell me you don't even believe in IQ. The reasons for it are now glaringly obvious. I can run rings round you and you know it.

btickler, you're so completely and obviously wrong regarding your opinions on luck and skill that in an even discussion, where you were forced to respond to my arguments, you wouldn't stand a chance because firstly you're wrong and secondly your ability is the lesser. You're good with words, though, and that means you can mask your inadequacies in logic. Occasionally, I see a similar facility in the self-expression of Coolout. He can be surprisingly erudite.

Lol.  if I were forced to reply to your arguments that I am wrong and that my ability is lesser?  Those cogent and well thought out arguments?

This is an even discussion.  You have ample chances to make your cases.

It's obvious that both of you use the same tactics. Because there are different people discussing, you can evade the more difficult questions and use a dialogue with another person as an excuse for not answering them.

Lol.  Nobody but you could possibly accuse me of not replying to enough points.

I've no idea why you should take it all so seriously but you do. I can see it without having to take it seriously myself.

Yes, your number of posts in these threads shows how disinterested and coolly aloof you are .

I know you talk rubbish most of the time and so does Coolout. Each of you, sometimes, comes up with something better. But still inadequate for the task in hand, were it not for the fact that you can deflect, more or less forever. And pretend, forever.

Naturally, I am definitely not of the opinion that you're the same person. Just that the similarities are rather strange, given the fact that you're always fighting. Same with someone else, viewed from afar.

Yes you did get my argument right.

So going by what you are saying, it's correct to say that "I won the game by my lack of skill." There is no word to use in this context as two players with equal display of skill have still one player winning the game. If skill difference didn't decide the game, I think it's incorrect to just use "lack of skill".

You can wax very eloquent. Pity for you, it's all artificial and fabricated. Yes, you can hoodwink some people.

So why the especial venom for me? I wonder. In what way do I frighten you? 

You know very well that starting threads to name and shame a particular member is completely against the rules here. Go and invent something else equally funny.

I might have confused Koshmot with Kowenerai. It was a mistake but a bit of luck for me, don't you agree? Because it highlights your constant desire to use anything like that to deflect and to make false points. So you see, it definitely wasn't skill that led me to confuse the two names. Even you wish to point out that it was my stupidity and not my skill. And yet it has led you into highlighting the basis of your debating tactics voluntarily. 

The results are part of the determination of luck,  which is why its not something that can be predicted like chance and probability.  It requires random chance, inhuman action,  resulting in success or failure.  The choosing of colors only satisfies two of these requirements.  You can't say black or white pieces caused a player to lose.     You can't say oh the winner got lucky,   but the loser just lacked skill.   Thats a contradiction and poor sportsmanship.  And when people use the capablanca quote,  he was sarcastically scolding people like you wwho proclaim such.   You can't have it both ways my friend.

One more thing is that I have caught you altering your posts more than once before, so it comes as no reply (and no surprise). And of course you were answering me. Honesty seems to be a strange ideology, doesn't it?

When you act, like you are acting now, do you imagine that no-one ever refers to it in the future?? You made some bad arguments about why there is no luck in chess. They were based on an ideology that cannot accept that luck co-exists in human actions. Coolout has the same belief and I think it may be based on a misperception of determinism. I noticed that some people disgreed with both of you but were having a lot of difficulty because you kept evading their arguments. I showed how you are wrong. You have endeavoured to put an awful lot of distance between being shown to be wrong and now. And an awful lot of posts.

It is almost unbelievable that someone can go to the lengths you have gone to, just to cover up being shown to be wrong in a debate.

Is it vanity?

I'm quoting capablanca to show that your mentality has been noted before.  When you say the winning player got lucky,  but the loser showed poor skill,  that is trying to have it both ways.  That is you still believing skill and luck are not opposites when it applies to gaming.

Also if you read my posts,  I literally told optimissed thats why your trolling me even though we seem to agree.  It is because I changed my mind that color selection is not the only element of luck,  its the only element of chance.  

Because  I already said color selection satisfies two of the 3 categories to be luck.   But it doesn't not satisfy the third which is the cause that resulted in success of failure.  Go read my previous posts again.   But Your logic of white being an advantage meaning luck,  and the black players losing is skill,   would be like saying a players with the higher skill are lucky.   SO you are contradicting yourself yet again,  either color selection is the only element of luck,   or good or bad  play is.   But this is painful to see you argue,  because neither are.

What is painful is that paragraph.  It's a logical plate of spaghetti.

SO now not only are you having it both ways with your contradictory terms.  You are trying to have it both ways in this debate as Optimissed has rightly pointed out.    You are doing it again.  You just argued with Koshmot that  the chess is pure skill.   So how could a player get lucky because he won with white?

Because I didn't argue that chess is pure skill.  Comprehend what you are reading.  I have consistently said that initial color selection is luck, and I have said so since long before you started playing chess.

In my opinion, there is no luck in chess, as there is no luck in math. There only is the partly unpredictable nature of your opponent. You're not "lucky" if he misplays, since it's a bad play on his part, rather than chance. Apart from that, it's just a contest of skill, focus and perception.

What problem? That you appear to be a complete nutcase? So that as soon as I decide to actually show up your weak and shallow arguments for what they are, because others, although they can clearly see you're wrong, can't counter your devious deflections, all of a sudden you make it personal? I showed clearly that your belief that no luck is possible in chess is based on a mere ideology. You have no arguments for it at all.

So what? It isn't important. It's a petty thing. It's a forum on chess.com. Yet as soon as you get taken apart convincingly in a discussion, it's back to the old personal attacks. You're a complete and utter nutter, you know. Anyone looking at your Covid thread can see. And that's why you're attecking me: because I burst your bubble. You are really not very bright but you're just clever enough to make this an argument about me saying that you are so stoopid that it's actually impossible to discuss anything with you, because you never understand a thing but are skilled at making other unintelligent people believe that you somehow just won an argument. Great for you. It's one of the reasons why you're disliked so much. No-one is allowed to argue against you. You ALWAYS make it personal and if it's one of your threads, you block them.

Its bananas is what it is lmao.  You have literally argued both sides of this argument,  You can't say that the gamplay is pure skill to koshmot,  and then say when a player wins with white its because he got lucky to me.  Disregarding the fact it was because of his skill.   Because again,  you can't say getting white is inherently bad for players,  especially when many have more success with black.     Not only are you  wrong to think getting white is the reason a player wins,   but you also can't call it good or bad.

The difference with poker for example,  which is a game based more on skill than luck when regarding professionals,  is that randomly drawn cards can be considered inherently bad or good,  because it can be a direct cause of a successful or failed result which cannot be changed by skill.   White and black color selection in chess which is not even part of the gameplay,  and which does not determine success or failure,  good or bad moves,  so cannot be considered luck.   period.  Its nothing more then an element of random chance,  not good or bad luck.

So again,  you telling koshmot that chess is based on skill and a players gameplay has nothing to do with luck,  is contradicting you also saying a player can have successful gameplay because he got white.   Furthermore again,   many players have a higher success rate with black,  which means white is not always inherently good regardless of the perceived advantage of the first move,  because it still depends on the skill of the player.