Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

In this scenario there is no luck in this particular way. Because the random variable is created by information that is missing while making a decision. But if an engine or human could calculate till the end, chess would be solved and there is no game. 

Until that, luck exists as I explained (and in other ways too).

If you agree that chess can be solved in this way, then you must also agree that there is no luck in the game of chess. In the above scenario, we did not change the game of chess in order to remove luck. We only changed outside factors (the intelligence of an engine).

The "luck" involved in chess has nothing to do with chess at all. It is like saying you need to be "lucky" to get 100% on a math test. There is no luck involved in math (2 + 2 always equals 4), however, someone can accidentally miscalculate an answer. Would you say there is luck involved in math similar to how there is luck in chess?

This does not address the argument of luck at all. It's the same as you would learn to roll a dice so that it always lands where you want, no luck haha.

To say there is no luck you would have to answer the question from my previous post: When we proved that skill wasn't the factor in determining the better outcome, what was it? Your post here doesn't address it, it just tries to deflect by changing the subject. I think your ego doesnt allow you to admit you're wrong.

And yes, there is luck in math as well in a particular way. If I make you calculate 15,787768×19,98889 (just a random example, could be more complicated) in 15 seconds, you can only make your best estimate or the correct answer. Maybe you would be able to estimate it's under 300, but you cant calculate the desimals. You have to guess the desimals, and theres a certain chance you get them right without calculation. If you get exactly the right answer, you would be considered lucky. In chess a comparable process happens.

I'm sure there is luck in this regard as well but I feel it's complicated to prove, why is mental control not skill based as opposed to luck based.

     If this is extremely easy for you, why do you continue to evade my request to provide a dictionary definition that includes "able to increase one's chances of success through practice or knowledge"? Without this bit of bs that you invented yourself, the definitions you use do not support most of the claims you have made here. When others fail to respond to your requests you call them dishonest and cowardly; surely you must agree that you are behaving in just the same way.

     I have more than once pointed out that there are a lot of dictionaries with a lot of different definitions of luck. Many others have posted some of these definitions. You have simply declared that only the definition you provide is correct and others are shamefully disregarding the "truth" you so magnanimously provide. This claim that others are deceitful because they have dictionaries whose definitions differ from yours is ridiculous.

     Should you wish to find the most comprehensive explanation of English language usage of the word luck, the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary is available online (annual subscription $100), or you may be able to access it for free if you have a library card and your local library has the online version and offers remote access. 

     I have no intention of searching out some definition that best serves my opinion. I have shown how your definitions are inadequate to prove your point without the extra "definition" you made up yourself and am perfectly content with all the dictionary definitions posted on this forum. However, because you seem so desperate, Here is the definition from the dictionary I have had on my bookshelf for many years (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary). I make no claim that this is the best possible explanation, but it is a dictionary definition as respectable as any you have posted.

     1a. a force that brings good fortune or adversity

     1b. the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual

     2,.favoring chance

     There is also a definition of luck as a verb: to prosper or succeed through chance or good fortune (used with out, on, onto, into)

Well true, mental control and more specificly attention are controlled by chemicals in your brain so I'm sure there is randomness in how your brain decides to apply dopamine etc. So yes, there are random factors there as well. Of course not accordingly Coolouts definition because it can defy anything.

     I agree that we are hardly likely to see an rmg defeat a GM or a team of monkeys produce a Shakespeare play, but the laws of statistics show that given enough tries, the likelyhood of such an event becomes a near certainty. We cannot say that such an event can never happen, as it as just as likely that such a result will occur in game #10 as in game #10,000,000,000,000.

     Even should chess be solved by machines, humans will continue to play, as no one could memorize all lines in all variations that lead to the forced win or draw. Humans can be erratic leaving happenstance an opening to affect the results.

     Even the machine isn't immune to the effects of luck. Should a patzer sit down to a 30-minute game vs the perfect computer and a local blackout keep the machine inert for an hour, the human will win on time. Surely this isn't a case of the patzer suddenly becoming better at chess than the computer, it was just a lucky break.

Presented by Optimissed as part of the "Perfect argument"


I just came up with the argument that no person has perfect control over their thoughts. Near perfect, maybe ... but not perfect. It would be impossible to prove that a person can have perfect control over their thoughts and rather ridiculous, also. Therefore, some of our thoughts are random and therefore luck exists in chess.

I refute:

Simply, the fact that humans can't prove something does not mean it isn't true. So  even if we agree it can't be proven, there is no logic step that takes you to it being false. There are probably millions of truths that we are unable to prove. 

Further:

 Even if we agree that people don't have perfect control over their thought (far from proven) there is a lack of logic that takes you from there to the conclusion that some of our thoughts are random.  There are infinite possibilities that involve partial control of thoughts to various degrees, and any control at all makes them non-random. You must prove not that we don't have "perfect" control, but that we have thought that occur with absolutely no control, otherwise they are not random.  Big difference. Proving that we have random thoughts is not as simple as just snapping your fingers and saying "it's obvious". So your conclusion that there is, IN FACT, luck involved, doesn't hold up to logical analysis. Basically, you are making a few statements that are intuitively obvious to you, treating them as proven facts, and drawing the conclusion that is consistent with your belief.

In summary you don't need "perfect control" over your thoughts to make them non-random. Any control at all, however minuscule, makes them non random. That in itself, destroys your argument. 

You're going to have to do better than this to earn "Best debater" title.

No, any mental control at all makes it non-random. Random isn't the lack of perfect control, it's the absence of any control. 

And again, the fact that humans can't prove it does not make it false. It just makes it unproven.

I was refuting the part of your post that I emboldened a few posts ago.

Cheap shots are not the hallmark of a top debater.

Oh, my mistake. Please explain the difference and I'll make sure to get the terminology right next time.

On my screen, post 3501 is white print on black background just like all others, with part of it made bold. Is it different on yours? I'll copy and paste here:

I just came up with the argument that no person has perfect control over their thoughts. Near perfect, maybe ... but not perfect. It would be impossible to prove that a person can have perfect control over their thoughts and rather ridiculous, also. Therefore, some of our thoughts are random and therefore luck exists in chess.

[sentence 2 does not follow from sentence 1 as it ignores the possibility of partial control of thoughts, and also being impossible to prove does not make something false]

My settings are all default.

As far as my skills can not help me to find a good continuation, the quality of my move will depend on luck. 

My choice will not be random, because I do not use dice or a glance at random numbers on my wrist watch to decide, but I use my skills I have up to now. They will reach neither far nor wide, while they pre-shape my actions into their scope.

I have an opponent to challenge my view, I have abstract skills like curiosity and ability to adopt new ways or make'em up to prevent stagnation, and random ideas as extras.

But, patzer or grandmaster, every wood pusher has limits and chess, by its set-up- the 8x8, pawns and pieces, the quests for mate- goes beyond our limits. 

The more valid rules of thumb, endgame techniques and calculational depth a player gathers, the smaller a role luck will play. (However small, it may still play a key role to decide games, because it can make a large difference compared to what little difference sets apart the skills of p.e. grandmasters. 

But luck really is, I guess, to become luckier players in a game where both check out their common luck. 

OK.....but I'm still troubled by this:

It would be impossible to prove that a person can have perfect control over their thoughts . Therefore, some of our thoughts are random and therefore luck exists in chess.

I don't see how the "Therefore" follows. Again, just because you can't prove something....that doesn't mean it isn't true.  So how do you know that you can't have perfect control over your thoughts? That may seem like a ridiculous notion, but in logic, you have to support your assertions, not just claim them. 

Also, even if you just have partial control over your thoughts, they are not random. Any control at all obviates randomness. So I see some serious holes in this argument. 

But I do agree....I'm not refuting... just arguing against. 

By the way, I have no idea whether there is luck in chess. But lately, if there is any, I could sure use some. It's been a rough spell for me. 

But it wasn't the lack of luck, it was stupidity. If there was a thread titled, "Is there stupidity in chess", I don't think there'd be much debate going on.