There is luck in chess?
Sort:
in the last game with josh13a, my knight was attacked and i moved it to a square and clicked submit move. then the game came on again, and for some reason, my move wasn't registered. this was lucky, because i then discovered that that knight move allowed a mate in 1. So i corrected the move, put my knight on a square where it defends the mate, and eventually won the game.
also, in my 2nd game with ERV, I had bad luck. on my las move of this game, i wanted to recapture the pawn, but i accidently clicked the wrong square. he took another pawn, made his pawn into an unstoppable passer, and i resigned
Yes for sure. I don't know the exact words but Kasparov said that winning in chess is capitalizing on your opponents error. If you make an error you lose, if your opponent makes an error you win.....so yes i believe winning in chess is taking advantages of little mistakes. As a beginnner its huge blunders, but as you increase skill, its postional advantages....
Reb wrote:fabricio78 wrote:
I think there is a misconception here on what "luck" means. A man would say he has been lucky because something that was not under his control has happened and favored him somehow. The key of this definition is "not under his control". In a card games, for example, the cards that are dealed to the players are distributed randomly, with no influence from any player at the table. So getting good or bad cards is completely defined by how lucky each player is. In chess, there is no luck at all because there is no factor that is not under the influence of the players. The move that a player executes is under his complete responsibility, as all the information about the game being played (position, material, etc) is available for both players all the time.
Of course you can say that you were lucky because your oponent made a mistake, but the reason for your victory was not luck; the reason is that your oponent made a mistake (so it's his fault). Conceptually, in chess there is no "luck" variable as there is in other games such as cards or dice.
I am losing on the board and my opponent has a choice of several good moves, all winning. For some reason he just "forgets" his clock and in trying to find the fastest win he flags and loses on time. Ofcourse his actions (or inaction in this case) is beyond my control and he has just lost on time in a game he was easily winning. This is pure luck that has favored me, good luck for me and bad for him. Nuff said
I'm not sure I agree. This seems reasonable at first but when you think about it this would imply that the opponent got unlucky when he forgot his time. Since time limits is part of the game I don't think you can call it bad luck to run out of time.
Chess is pretty much 0% luck. If ur opponent loses out on time or makes a bad move, thats not u being lucky, thats ur opponent being stupid (something pretty true that a guy told me recently is that the winner of a chess match is the person who makes the next-to-last mistake).
Feb 11, 2008
0
#66
There is luck in chess. Here are some examples. A player may have just learned something, such as a new move, in a line that his opponent is trying to play. The stronger player may see more in six lines, but choose the one line in which his opponent sees one move he missed. I saw a spectator call a player's time down, which is bad luck. Bad conditions at tournaments are not distributed evenly among the contestants. Sunlight may be in the eyes of some. Noise from a water cooler with player after player filling up cups affects the players near it. Power failures occur. A ceiling fell down in Siberia just where a player had just finished a game and had gotten up. Tie breaking points may be earned, but the pairings are not under the players' control.
No there is no luck in chess, only mistakes and conditions. One players bad move does not make ther other player lucky, only in a better position to win.
WhitePawn wrote: No there is no luck in chess, only mistakes and conditions. One players bad move does not make ther other player lucky, only in a better position to win.
Thank you.
"Luck" makes it sound as if some mystical power caused the power failure. Sun in someone's eyes...is sunshine. Circumstances. Conditions. You can't quantify something called 'luck". You can quantify ratings, experience, time, position, etc. I didn't say odds. That's statistics and can be measured. Someone rated 700 could NEVER beat Kasparov. And if Kasparov fell dead in the middle of the match and the guy won, Garry just died. That's all. I think when someone calls on "luck" as the reason something great happened they do 2 things. First, they are denying their skill or the other person's lack of skill. Second, they are attributing something almost supernatural to their reason for profitting so that it seems more special if only to them.
I feel lucky that someone made a thread about luck so that I can voice my opinions on it. Lucky me!!!
Feb 11, 2008
0
#69
Death happens in chess. It happened more with adjourned games. Players in lost positions have won by not resigning because of the death of their opponents. If you limit the definition of luck to something mystical, you are mistaken and anyone who gives concrete examples is out of luck banging on concrete.
There is luck in a lot of sports, but not in chess.
There is luck in basquet ball, when a player throw from the other side of the field in the last second without looking and yet he make a triple. That is luck!. Chess does not have nothing like that. Every move is calculated (or miscalculated).
Tigran Petrosian once hung his queen in a better position in an important game. His opponent (I believe it was Bronstein but not positive) was LUCKY and anyone who says otherwise really doesnt know what they are talking about. After his opponent took his queen Petrosian resigned, ofcourse. I once played in a simul given by Korchnoi in the 70s, he was playing 30 or 40 boards (I forget the number) I played the modern benoni as black and "Viktor the terrible" played the taimanov line against it. It just so happens that I had recently been studying that line a LOT and I got a decent position and even drew the game. I was the only draw with Korchnoi winning all other games and against players who were much stronger than me. If he had played any other line against the modern benoni that that very line that I had just been studying a lot I would have been smashed I am certain. I was LUCKY that he chose to play a line that I knew well into the middlegame.
Feb 13, 2008
0
#72
orejano wrote:
There is luck in a lot of sports, but not in chess.
There is luck in basquet ball, when a player throw from the other side of the field in the last second without looking and yet he make a triple. That is luck!. Chess does not have nothing like that. Every move is calculated (or miscalculated).
Please explain how the Basketball example shows that it is luck and not skill.
Feb 13, 2008
0
#73
Reb gave one of my examples of luck. Of course, it required skill on his part. The example from basketball of throwing the ball and scoring also required skill. Even without looking, a shot requires skill. Luck may be involved due to the notion that every shot is not made, but that one was. I used to practice shooting basketballs blindfolded. A player has to always know where on the court he is no matter which way he is facing. Luck has been variously described here. It is how we describe events after the fact. Some will then ascribe luck to a person in a way that makes it part of a person's nature. That is not how I use it. Gamblers do that. For example, chess players who play for money will come to believe that they cannot win against a better player. Backgammon players, you would think, are less likely to conclude that their skill is insufficient because the obvious luck involved in the game allows then to hide their inferiority. Instead they may decide that the player who beats them is luckier and therefore they cannot play that person. The rating system in chess contains luck. Just think of the crosstable with the names and ratings of the players. Your results will lead you to figure out the rating points that you have gained or lost. The actual current ratings of your opponents will differ from what was posted. If you are lucky, that difference will favor your rating change.
Checkers4Me wrote: orejano wrote:
There is luck in a lot of sports, but not in chess.
There is luck in basquet ball, when a player throw from the other side of the field in the last second without looking and yet he make a triple. That is luck!. Chess does not have nothing like that. Every move is calculated (or miscalculated).
Please explain how the Basketball example shows that it is luck and not skill.
"when a player throw from the other side of the field in the last second without looking and yet he make a triple"
I think that what I wrote is pretty self explanatory.
Feb 13, 2008
0
#75
^really it's not.
I understand if you can't elaborate.
What I am wondering is how do you make the distinction between the basketball example being luck and not skill. How is that shot lucky? Is it because it is not a high percentage shot and therefore if someone does make it, it's considered lucky?
Lebron James can make that shot and routinely does before the game. He practices that shot as well.
Checkers4Me wrote:
^really it's not.
I understand if you can't elaborate.
What I am wondering is how do you make the distinction between the basketball example being luck and not skill. How is that shot lucky? Is it because it is not a high percentage shot and therefore if someone does make it, it's considered lucky?
Lebron James can make that shot and routinely does before the game. He practices that shot as well.
Well, I'm sorry for you lack of text comprehension.
It's interesting but when I read one of the posts where the writer maintains that there is absolutely no luck in chess, I look that player up and they are usually rated pretty low. Hmmm. Many of the higher ranked players admit that there is some luck in the game; this is interesting also since a strong player could very easily insist that all of his wins were completely of his own doing, and all of his loses were due to playing stronger players. Individuals who are finanacially of high ranking often deny any luck at all in their circumstance, but these strong chess players admit to an element of luck...interesting. If I want advice on the Najdorf Sicilian, will I pay more attention to the advice of a strong player or a weak player if the advice differs? You be the judge.
No one is claiming that chess is dominated by luck, but as long as humans play the game it is enevitable. How else do you explain a 1900 player dropping a piece when playing a 1200 player? Do you think this doesn't happen. Did the 1200 player outplay the 1900?
If I am driving my car, which requires a fair degree of skill and which I am normally very proficient at, but I lose control of my car do to bad road conditions, then you may say that there was no luck involved. I'm just a bad driver. But suppose there is a tractor-trailer behind me when I lose control? You may blame my losing control on my lack of skill, but if I am not killed in the accident how do you explain that. Yes I know, you attribute it to the skill of the driver of the truck. But if I don't know anything at all about the skills of the truck driver then this seems more like luck to me. Very often the same occurs in chess. I don't know anything at all about my opponent. I don't know if he plays better in open positions or closed positions. I don't know if he prefers e pawn, d pawn, c pawn opening, or something more offbeat. I don't know if he prefers classical or hypermodern. Now if I knew that I was playing a stronger opponent who didn't have very good mastery of hypermodern, then I would play hypermodern. But most of the time we don't know...and this is partly where the element of luck comes in.
Not really.
