Luck DOES exist in chess!

Originally posted by Varenka
[b]With your logic we might as well strike the word luck from the dictionary.

Not at all, I accept that there is luck relating to things beyond our control. For example, I cannot roll a dice and control the outcome. But chess is deterministic; the limiting factor is our ability.

I think what determines luck is not the mate in one... it's if yo ...[text shortened]... it was due to "luck"? When a strong player plays badly, then that's exactly what it is.[/b]

Yes, you were lucky he was playing lazy.. you can't control what he is going to do just like you can't control what number the dice will land on.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
And if you don't believe in luck in chess why don't you wish your
opponents "Good Luck" before the start of a game.
If you think luck has no part in the game what harm will it do?

Wouldn't saying "good luck" suggest I believe that the game could be decided by luck?! Which is not what I think. Anyway that was many years ago and since then I believe I have used those words but mainly to echo a common courtesy and not because I believe in them literally. Yes, sometimes I remember it's just a game too. 🙂

I'll tell you what.... let's decide it over a game. If you win, I'll admit there's luck in chess... 😉

Originally posted by tomtom232
Yes, you were lucky he was playing lazy.. you can't control what he is going to do just like you can't control what number the dice will land on.

If we were to play a game with dice, there's you, me and the dice. i.e. the dice is a 3rd element outwith both our controls.

But in chess, there's only me and you. Now, as you say, I have no control over what you do. But you have control over yourself and if you are lazy then you are not worthy of winning. That's completely different from a person playing to the best of their ability but losing because they got bad rolls of the dice.

If people play badly they deserve to lose. And their opponent deserves full credit for playing better during that game, regardless of whether it reflects their general ability or not.

Hi V

I'm with you 100% on any loser not being unlucky.

I have never said to myself after a loss I was unlucky.
Yes I've tossed a few wins in the air in my time but always blamed me.

A loser is never unlucky. Being unlucky is not an excuse.
But you can be a lucky winner, I've been a lucky winner more times
than I've chucked one so I cannot complain....but I do.

A game? You only have one in progress (a serious little chappie).
OK 1 day with 3 day timebank. 2 games one white each.
I have ALL your games on my DB - (horrid loss in Game 8236885
the lad played well. )

Give me a few days to wrap up some stuff I'm doing (Going work out something v your 1.c4 ) 😉
and I'll fire across a challenge.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Give me a few days to wrap up some stuff I'm doing (Going work out something v your 1.c4 ) 😉

I was only winding you up..... don't worry about it.

And that guy was lucky I didn't play better.... 😛

This might be simple, but I consider myself lucky when I find a really good move that I did not see ahead of time- a sudden shot that is a result of my previous moves, but I did not see it when I played them.

The kind of moves that sort of fall into my lap, I should say. I suppose positional gardening yields tactical fruit, but if I feel pleasantly surprised, I feel lucky that it happened.

Of course, if I miss it and the computer finds it after the game, I just feel dumb, but luck is a fickle lady!

Donner on chess and luck:

http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/Chessluck.html

One thing that puzzles me is the constant equating of luck with chance. Chance is probability and therefore quantifiable (if you don't believe me just take a course on probability) unlike luck. How lucky was I? I don't know, you can't put a figure on it. How likely was that to happen? Now we're talking, that is quantifiable, you can put a figure to it. And chance is neutral, there are no good or bad probabilities. You are not unlucky if you fail to win the lottery, stupid for throwing money away maybe, but not unlucky.

Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity, Seneca c. 50 AD.

This seems a better way to view luck. Every example of luck relies on their being an opportunity that was either spotted and taken (good luck) or missed (bad luck). One might also say that he who provides the opportunity has missed it and suffers from bad luck. This is why Napoleon expressed a preference for lucky generals over good generals, not because he relied on chance but because he equated success with spotting and grasping opportunities rather than theoretical knowledge. The same applies to chess and is likely why training tactics reaps greater dividends than all other chess study. Training tactics teaches us to spot the opportunities provided, usually unwittingly, by our opponents.

Good luck.

Originally posted by Diophantus
Donner on chess and luck:

http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/Chess/Trivia/Chessluck.html

One thing that puzzles me is the constant equating of luck with chance. Chance is probability and therefore quantifiable (if you don't believe me just take a course on probability) unlike luck. How lucky was I? I don't know, you can't put a figure on it. How likely was ...[text shortened]... us to spot the opportunities provided, usually unwittingly, by our opponents.

Good luck.

this is more to the point. strictly speaking, chess is a determined game and with two people knowing ALL possible moves one can not talk of chance or luck anymore.

however, things are more complicated. we are not perfect and as the thread opener mentioned, his moves were ok when he played them, blunderous when he realized them and suddenly good for him, when he saw his opponents reply.

so luck is relative, it depends on the subject (person) and situation in question. a person always "feels" lucky. when i find money on the street, i might "feel" lucky - but objectively it was just a row of certain things happening, leading to me finding it (like stumbling across a stone and falling with my nose into a puddle of water and dog crap, just to find a one dollar bill on the floor...i mean, how lucky is that!)

As rich as the English language is, we are stuck with the one word 'Luck '
to cover a game where an opponent has missed a forced mate.

There is nothing you can do if an opponent has a forced mate but
follow the rules of the game as he plays out the sequance that is mating you.

You can lose a piece and fight on and sometimes win.
You have a bad position and wriggle out of it and win.
This is you turning some bad play into good play or waking up.

The German have good single words for these things and a few are now
firmly entrenched in Chess Lore.
Zugzwang, zeitnot (time trouble) and Luft (giving a King a bolt hole) spring to mind.
What do the Germans call luck in chess?

there are two cute words: glueck meaning good luck and pech meaning bad luck. 'pech' also has a double meaning, it also is used for 'tar', as in tared and feathered. it is the black greazy stuff, not the fluffy white stuff.

edit: and as far as it goes for luck in chess, dont know how germans in general like to think about it (but a perfect chance to spread some rumors: germans never feel lucky in chess. they make the opponent feel lucky enough to try out something new and creative and then...then...). but i certainly feel sometimes very gluecklich (lucky), when i was afraid of an opponents move and find out, he makes a far less frightening one...

Originally posted by tharkesh
this is more to the point. strictly speaking, chess is a determined game and with two people knowing ALL possible moves one can not talk of chance or luck anymore.

however, things are more complicated. we are not perfect and as the thread opener mentioned, his moves were ok when he played them, blunderous when he realized them and suddenly good for him, ...[text shortened]... ater and dog crap, just to find a one dollar bill on the floor...i mean, how lucky is that!)

You can talk of luck if you treat chance and luck as separate concepts. If my opponent presents me with an opportunity (he leaves a piece hanging) I am lucky if I spot it (I realise the bishop protecting the rook is pinned). I might also say I was unlucky if I failed to spot the opportunity.

Chance is when you are about to mate in one and your chair wobbles causing you to plonk your queen on the wrong square thus turning glorious victory into miserable defeat. Don't laugh, it happened to me once!

Hi Diophantus

It's not luck you saw the win of the piece, that was abiity.
It was not luck he left it hanging, that was bad play.

I think the luck bit comes in when you have gone wrong
and your opponent missed it. You were lucky.
We need a better word for luck in chess.

Scachglueck (is that right?) - to have good luck in chess.

Reminds me of the well-known quote (attributed to many different people): "The more I practice, the luckier I get".

I am not very lucky.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Diophantus

It's not luck you saw the win of the piece, that was abiity.
It was not luck he left it hanging, that was bad play.

I think the luck bit comes in when you have gone wrong
and your opponent missed it. You were lucky.
We need a better word for luck in chess.

Scachglueck (is that right?) - to have good luck in chess.

There is a psychologist out there somewhere (can't remember his name though) who calls luck an ability. His theory is that luck is the ability to spot and take advantage of opportunities and, just like any ability, it can be trained. On the other hand, I generally have a healthy scepticism about the theories of trick cyclists so maybe he is talking complete balderdash.

I would argue that this view of luck is close to Seneca's view and mine. We train tactics so that we know there is something lurking (an opportunity) and we can execute whatever combination or plan is required to take advantage of that opportunity. My opponent left a piece hanging, I spotted it. It doesn't matter whether we call it luck or dress it up as me having greater ability than my opponent, if I had not trained that ability I likely wouldn't have spotted the opportunity. Would I say my opponent was lucky if I missed the opportunity? Not really, it is my lack of ability that is responsible. Maybe we could say that we both need to train more so I can spot the opportunities and he can stop giving them away!

Does anyone think "luck" is a psychological device for apportioning blame other than where it truly lies?

Great for etiquette, diplomacy and avoiding overloading the "soul" with guilt and frustration of course...