Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 19 Jan '09 01:07


    I mean really? I mean 22.b4 was made simply because my queen was toast. Then I took the pawn because it was hanging just to notice that I ended up forking the bishops. That's just a small part of chance, the ending is totally luck:

    Nb4 was made because I figured he would get his rook aligned for the check, but I wasn't expecting Rd3, so I then attack his rook with my king because I wanted to save my knight. Then Kb1 is a blunder followed up with the knight moves that end the game.

    This was total luck with a little help from a blunder on my opponent's part. Is this what chess is about for most people? Or do most people plan this kind of crap?
  2. 19 Jan '09 01:10
    I would call it "crap" When you didn't take advantage of it. Luck is not in chess too. If you see a mistake and don't know how to take advantage of it then there is no reason for your to badger your opponents play. Chess is about learning from your mistakes and playing better the next game and don't make the same mistake again.
  3. 19 Jan '09 01:10
    wouldn't**
  4. 19 Jan '09 01:16
    You do know you can edit your posts.

    To follow up on what you said, chess is part "luck" because you can't control your opponent's error. This assumes of course that the opponent is good enough to defeat you and you are good enough to defeat your opponent.
  5. 19 Jan '09 01:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    You do know you can edit your posts.

    To follow up on what you said, chess is part "luck" because you can't control your opponent's error. This assumes of course that the opponent is good enough to defeat you and you are good enough to defeat your opponent.
    I don't think a blundering opponent could be considered as luck, because chess isn't a solo performance game.

    If we could define a chess game as a contest between two people, the one to make the game losing blunder would simply be worse, and this would make the winning side better. There's no room left for the luck parameter.

    but this is a superficial and isolated case view. Could Kramnik be considered unlucky for missing mate in 1 against fritz? It obviously doesn't represent his strength. My feelings are that he can't, but I need more thinking on this.
  6. 19 Jan '09 04:14
    Originally posted by Eladar
    You do know you can edit your posts.

    To follow up on what you said, chess is part "luck" because you can't control your opponent's error. This assumes of course that the opponent is good enough to defeat you and you are good enough to defeat your opponent.
    Chess has absolutly no luck whatsoever. Reason being? If you were to play a grandmaster a million games at your rating you would not beat him once.

    Poker has luck anyone can beat anyone. I hate the fact that people think there is even a slight ammount of luck in the game. Luck is some sort of external force interferring in a game towards a certain player. There is none so there is no luck in chess.
  7. 19 Jan '09 04:50
    Originally posted by kmac27
    Chess has absolutly no luck whatsoever. Reason being? If you were to play a grandmaster a million games at your rating you would not beat him once.

    Poker has luck anyone can beat anyone. I hate the fact that people think there is even a slight ammount of luck in the game. Luck is some sort of external force interferring in a game towards a certain player. There is none so there is no luck in chess.
    You're right in one sense that there is no luck in chess like the luck found in backgammon. Random dice. You roll double sixes and that can make up for a good deal of shortcomings in skill and no matter how much you master the game you cannot control the roll of the dice.

    However, there has been a thread on luck in chess and I think some folks made a good case for it.

    If you make the right move for the wrong reason you can consider yourself lucky. Or if you make the right move for no reason you can perceive, you are lucky.

    For example, an inexperienced chess player can dilberate between Rad1 and Red1, both of which does all that he intends or thinks is needed. If he choose Red1 and later wins the game that would have been lost by Rad1, that is luck by a normal definition of luck.
  8. 19 Jan '09 05:06
    I believe that is called intuition. You may know a move is not good so you choose a move not so daring that turns out to be good.
  9. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    19 Jan '09 05:27
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [pgn][Event "ICS rated blitz match"]
    [Site "freechess.org"]
    [Date "2009.01.18"]
    [Round "-"]
    [White "ayi"]
    [Black "Eladar"]
    [Result "0-1"]
    [WhiteElo "1294"]
    [BlackElo "1104"]
    [TimeControl "600"]

    1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Nc6 4. Nc3 Nh6 5. Nf3 Nf5 6. g4 Nh6 7. h3 b6 8. Bd3 Bb7 9. Bf4 Qd7 10. Qd2 Bb4 11. g5 Nf5 12. Bb5 O-O-O 13. O-O-O Kb8 14. a3 Bxc3 1 ...[text shortened]... hess is about for most people? Or do most people plan this kind of crap?
    Even if you plan nothing, a good, alert sense for tactics can save you over and over again in tough situations.

    For example, rather than give up because his Bishops are forked, White could have just played 26.Rb3! pinning the Bishop and winning his piece back.

    But yeah, it's better to do some calculating in advance, and not fall into traps. Once you decide on your move, glance at all your opponent's possible replies. You'll be surprised how many blunders this avoids.
  10. 19 Jan '09 05:36
    Agreed. Even looking one of your opponents moves ahead can change the way you play drastically.
  11. 19 Jan '09 15:12 / 1 edit
    Yes, Rb3 would have kicked my butt. I should have taken the bishop with my bishop, then either let him save his other bishop or take mine. Thanks for pointing that out.

    If he had gone Rb3 immediately after I forked, then I could have just gone Ra4 and won the bishop. I don't see anything for him after that.
  12. 19 Jan '09 15:50
    As you get stronger you will find that you are creating and executing plans more and more. At some level people start making less and less mistakes in simple positions, and at that level it become important to apply pressure to their position in order to induce errors.

    I have finally gotten my ICC standard rating to stick above 2000 and it is largely as a result of my new found understanding of applying pressure to my opponents.
  13. 19 Jan '09 18:05
    Of course there is luck involved in chess. David LeMoir wrote an excellent book entitled 'How to be lucky in chess' which I would highly recommend.
  14. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    19 Jan '09 18:53
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Yes, Rb3 would have kicked my butt. I should have taken the bishop with my bishop, then either let him save his other bishop or take mine. Thanks for pointing that out.

    If he had gone Rb3 immediately after I forked, then I could have just gone Ra4 and won the bishop. I don't see anything for him after that.
    Now, for the fun part - what happens after 25...Bxc6 26.Be3!?
  15. 19 Jan '09 19:00
    Originally posted by streetfighter
    Of course there is luck involved in chess. David LeMoir wrote an excellent book entitled 'How to be lucky in chess' which I would highly recommend.
    Agree, there are definite moments of luck in chess.

    Once my opponent didn't show up in a tournament. I won the game, and later the tournament. Without the free walkover, I wouldn't. I was very lucky.