Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?
Sort:
I wonder if everyone will ever reach a final conclusion and the conversation will end.
Jun 4, 2022
0
#1663
CooloutAC wrote:
Chance is involved in everything my friend. Its simply the possibility of something happening. It does not mean luck as I have explained. Even random chance, which can't be measured otherwise, also does not mean luck.
Even in GM games that also is not the case. So lets make it even simply, getting black would only be bad luck, if it always had a negative result. Which is clearly does not my friend.
I have said from the beginning that occasionally some extremely unlikely event will affect a chess game's result. That rare occurrence is the only bit of luck I claimed existed in chess. As you say, chance is involved in everything, even chess. Of course something occurring that is beyond the control of the humans involved, is unpredictable, and caused a negative or positive outcome that no amount of skill could obviate is indeed luck.
As for your ridiculous bit about drawing black, you realize that under your dictum that something is only (un)lucky if it affects the final result, black would have to lose every game to fulfill your conditions. Were that the case the game would have disappeared centuries ago.
Jun 4, 2022
0
#1664
ivandh wrote:
When I win, it is because of skill. When I lose, it is because of luck.
This second comment in my opinion should've ended this forum eleven years ago.
Jun 4, 2022
0
#1665
"There's a lot of luck in chess, which is hard to explain to the gawking rabble" -- Finegold
6:41
Jun 4, 2022
0
#1666
CooloutAC wrote:
Just to enlighten you, the reason why most players have higher win percentage with white is because players learn white openings first since it has the power of the first move.
White has a higher win percentage in the database because having the first move is a slight advantage. However, below a certain rating point, research has shown this advantage does not exist. If I recall correctly, the advantage of the first move starts to matter above 1600 (I could be 200 points off in either direction).
The ratings considered in the study were OTB ratings.
András Adorján, Black is Still OK! (2004) discusses similar research, but there is a more recent study that I’m having trouble locating at the moment. Adorján quotes a statement by Evgeny Sveshnikov, summarizing statistical research, that White has no advantage among beginners.
Jun 4, 2022
0
#1667
CooloutAC wrote:
Just like you admit increasing ones chances in the wind, therefore means you accept the results are not due to luck. Pointing to elements of luck and claiming they are rare in a chess game, mean they are not part of a chess game.
Just having a greater or lesser chance doesn't mean chance is no longer involved. When you take a slim chance and it works out, that is good luck. When you rely on a "sure thing" and it doesn't pan out, that is bad luck.
And your "if it's really rare it's not part of the game" is ridiculous beyond belief. Sacrificing all your pieces but the two you need to mate is very rare, but Morphy accomplished it more than once. Were those not really chess games? Catching wind-blown field-goal attempts and running them back for TDs is very rare but it's still football. Just because luck rarely affects chess games doesn't mean it never does.
Jun 4, 2022
0
#1668
CooloutAC wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
"There's a lot of luck in chess, which is hard to explain to the gawking rabble" -- Finegold
6:41
lol is he reading this thread? He is using the word as a phrase but not its technical meaning as it applies to games, which I don't think he knows or why it exists. There is no elements of luck in chess, not even the only element of random chance which is color selection. Human determination of the moves even if by unplanned or unconscious intuition or action, still determine chances and results from ones own ability and experience. This is especially true since we are talking about a player vs player competition. Ironically he is the same guy who always says accuracy is only determined in relation to your opponents moves, which is why I also say accuracy doesn't always determine the winner.
If it were easy to explain to the gawking rabble, then this topic wouldn't be 147 pages long 
Jun 4, 2022
0
#1669
CooloutAC wrote:
Just to enlighten you, the reason why most players have higher win percentage with white is because players learn white openings first since it has the power of the first move.
So your reasoning is: "the first move isn't an advantage on its own, it's just that players study it because the first move is an advantage."
Very logic, much wow.
Jun 4, 2022
0
#1670
CooloutAC wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
"There's a lot of luck in chess, which is hard to explain to the gawking rabble" -- Finegold
6:41
lol is he reading this thread? He is using the word as a phrase but not its technical meaning as it applies to games, which I don't think he knows or why it exists. There is no elements of luck in chess, not even the only element of random chance which is color selection. Human determination of the moves even if by unplanned or unconscious intuition or action, still determine chances and results from ones own ability and experience. This is especially true since we are talking about a player vs player competition. Ironically he is the same guy who always says accuracy is only determined in relation to your opponents moves, which is why I also say accuracy doesn't always determine the winner.
If it were easy to explain to the gawking rabble, then this topic wouldn't be 147 pages long
He didn't mean it literally, he was projecting. He literally described himself as looking at his opponents move and saying he didn't understand it. He was being sarcastic about himself bud.
In fact, the sarcasm was so deep, that in order to pull it off he said it in a way that was completely serious.
Or in other words, the utter lack of evidence is proof that the conspiracy is real.
Leave the arguments to the original fighters for bragging rights and feelings of superiority! No newcomers @nMsALpg
Jun 4, 2022
0
#1672
Jalex13 wrote:
Leave the arguments to the original fighters for bragging rights and feelings of superiority! No newcomers @nMsALpg
k, bye
Jun 4, 2022
0
#1673
CooloutAC wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Pointing to elements of luck and claiming they are rare in a chess game, mean they are not part of a chess game.
Morphy's pieces were part of the game of chess, what is ridiculous is pointing to things that are not.
In your own words--rare happenings aren't really part of a game. Morphy's rare mates after sacrificing all of his other pieces, baseball perfect games, somebody scoring 70 or more points in a basketball game, none are really part of their sports by your reckoning. Things that determine winners in chess by means other than the players' moves are rare but still part of chess.
Jun 4, 2022
0
#1674
CooloutAC wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
"There's a lot of luck in chess, which is hard to explain to the gawking rabble" -- Finegold
6:41
lol is he reading this thread? He is using the word as a phrase but not its technical meaning as it applies to games, which I don't think he knows or why it exists. There is no elements of luck in chess, not even the only element of random chance which is color selection. Human determination of the moves even if by unplanned or unconscious intuition or action, still determine chances and results from ones own ability and experience. This is especially true since we are talking about a player vs player competition. Ironically he is the same guy who always says accuracy is only determined in relation to your opponents moves, which is why I also say accuracy doesn't always determine the winner.
If it were easy to explain to the gawking rabble, then this topic wouldn't be 147 pages long
He didn't mean it literally, he was projecting. He literally described himself as looking at his opponents move and saying he didn't understand it. He was being sarcastic about himself bud.
In fact, the sarcasm was so deep, that in order to pull it off he said it in a way that was completely serious.
Or in other words, the utter lack of evidence is proof that the conspiracy is real.
That is what he does for entertainment value. IMO it is good sportsmanship for the reasons i've said. saves you and your opponent from embarrassment. It is a common phrase, but here we are having a technical discussion.
In one of his very old videos he talks about a different case of luck... it's when you make a mistake because you know more than you used to. As in, a beginner would be too dumb to make the move, but a GM would be too good.
Jun 4, 2022
0
#1675
CooloutAC wrote:
Like ziryab this boils down to a sort of superiority or inferiority complex, or ego whatever you want to call it. But its not the reality.
I work from data. Sveshnikov was explaining what data shows.
Plenty of studies looking at massive numbers of games have shown a few things:
The higher the rating of the players, the more frequently the game ends in a draw. But also, with higher rated players, White wins substantially more often than Black.
Lower rated players have fewer draws and less difference between White and Black.
These differences diminish at faster time controls.
If you want to contest the claim, pull some data from a large database.
These percentages show White’s overall score. With reasonable opening moves, White scores better than Black. This screenshot is of the ChessBase mobile app. The data is based on games in their database of many millions of games.
Jun 4, 2022
0
#1676
@CooloutAC
You score better with the White pieces.
As do your opponents after 1.e4, but you make them suffer after other moves.
I also score better with White.
But my opponents do not.
Jun 4, 2022
0
#1677
White scores slightly better in my personal database of online games that goes back to 1999.
As Ziryab, I have a clear plus with White, winning 51% of my games.
With Black, I win more than my opponents, but I win less than 50%. My overall score as Black is 52.4%. With White it is 54.2%.
Relative to the norms in the ChessBase database, I underperform as White and overperform as Black. Even so, I have better chances with White.
Optimissed wrote:
Pretend adults? Being a less intelligent person than, I now believe, either of us, you, on the other hand, do a great job of pretending. I used to think you and Coolout were about eqivalent in intelligence. You have some people convinced of that but the numbers are falling and not increasing, suggesting that you should have accepted my offer. But you couldn't resist making the "threat" that you fully intend to continue trolling and nothing anyone can say will stop you.
I didn't make any threats. You did, and I simply told you yours would not be affecting me.
You're a dubious judge of anyone's intelligence.
Optimissed wrote:
I made no threats. No-one likes you. Go away.
Lol. I'm not 5, so that tactic won't work on me?
Optimissed wrote:
If you had more awareness then it maybe would. Put it this way. If you really think I made a credible threat after Nerves of Butter suggested we "get a room together", then you're round the bend. I merely expressed my extreme distaste for the idea. I asked you clearly not to make contact with me. You are a troll. That's the reason I don't want contact.
Lol. *You* came into that thread and went to town...try again. if you don't want contact, then why are referring to me constantly? The lady doth protest too much methinks...
now I just added a 147th one