Originally posted by kmac27Of course blunders are due to human error. But human errors aren't distributed evenly, and thus luck is a factor here. For example, if a player makes a bad blunder in every 10th game on average, and I only play this player once, I am lucky to get one of the few games in which he makes a bad blunder. Of course if I would play this opponent many times, it would even out.
a bad move on accident is also known as a blunder or mistake. That is due to human error not luck. In every chess game that is not drawn there is an error. Does that mean every game I win, I win due to luck? I find that games I have won I have not made as lethal mistakes as my opponent. Its that simple. If a lower rated player beats me it is due to the fact t ...[text shortened]... er than me believe it or not. I've lost to several 1300-1500 players while being 1700 and 1800.
Blunders aren't distributed statistically like that. They need to be provoked. There's no such thing as someone blundering a piece once every 10 games: usually, they will blunder a piece when their opponent creates difficulties. If it happens to occur once every 10 games, that's fine - but it's a matter of skill whether or not that blunder happens against you.
Originally posted by danilopWell, what I do also plays a role, of course. But it's not the only factor. Your opponent may be tired, distracted, drunk etc. Some blunders aren't even due to a thinking error, but due to things like a mouse slip. I have both made and been on the receiving end of completely unprovoked blunders.
Blunders aren't distributed statistically like that. They need to be provoked. There's no such thing as someone blundering a piece once every 10 games: usually, they will blunder a piece when their opponent creates difficulties. If it happens to occur once every 10 games, that's fine - but it's a matter of skill whether or not that blunder happens against you.
Edit: If you were right, that would mean that a player who would be confronted with the same quality of play every time (which of course is a hypothetical situation) would either blunder in every game or in none of them. That sounds extremely unlikely to me.
Wormwood quoted Kaparov after he pulled a game out of the fire
and won it.
"The more I study, the luckier I get."
The term lucky is often used in chess circles.
"I was getting beat but luckily my opponent blundered a Rook..."
There was no real luck involved, his opponent made a bad move.
Regarding the situation where you blunder a pawn/piece and sudden;y
you find yourself with a won game....
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/HowtoBeLuckyinChess.htm
,,,this might help. (excellent review )
Originally posted by kmac27That, of course, would be just as silly as saying that there's no luck involved whatsoever. Nobody (well, at least nobody in this thread as far as I can see) is suggesting that luck is the main factor in winning or losing chess games.
For now on whenever I win a game its due to the fact that I'm lucky. Everyone I play is either tired or drunk.
Originally posted by kmac27That brings up an interesting philosophical question. In a theoretical completely mistake-free game, does white win because white has an inherent advantage and so, with perfect play, must convert that advantage; or is the game a draw because, with perfect play, black must salvage the draw? It's the irresistible force vs. the immovable object.
In every chess game that is not drawn there is an error. Does that mean every game I win, I win due to luck?
Of course luck is involved in the domain in chess.
I was lucky in a tournament once. My opponent in the last round didn't show up, got a free point in walk over, gaining me a third price inthe tournament!
Luck? Yes, of course, no skill there.
Another time I prepared a trap in a game. So when the crucial piece was moved and the trap was about to come into action I saw, with chock, that if he fell into the 'trap' it was game over for me, because i hadn't foreseen a brilliant move of his, winning the game. But lucky me, he didn't see it. And I won the game eventually.
Luck? Yes, of course, no skill there.
Another small tournament I was seeded in a way that gave me a great advantage. I won the tournament.
Luck? Yes, of course, no skill there.
So of course, there is luck involved in the game of chess!
Originally posted by sh76Actually, black wins.
That brings up an interesting philosophical question. In a theoretical completely mistake-free game, does white win because white has an inherent advantage and so, with perfect play, must convert that advantage; or is the game a draw because, with perfect play, black must salvage the draw? It's the irresistible force vs. the immovable object.
Originally posted by kmac27"For now on whenever I win a game its due to the fact that I'm lucky." != "There's no luck involved whatsoever in the game of chess." Very few games are won entirely due to luck (an example for such a game would be the one Fabian mentioned in which the opponent didn't show up). Some games are won mainly due to luck. For example, I played a game against a higher rated player in which he blundered his queen, and it was not at all a trap or even a complicated position. But of course I didn't win only due to luck; I needed to survive until we got to that position, and I needed to see that the queen was free to be taken. After that I didn't need any skill as my opponent resigned. But I believe that in most games, luck only is a small factor. You might even win a game despite bad luck, for example when you play a weaker player who makes a mouse slip that turns out to be a great move, but you still manage to win the game.
You just said that luck is involved chess and now your saying that saying that luck is involved is as silly as my statement? Are you a politician?
Im generally a lucky player for my opponent to meet - I make unforced errors in most games because of my lack of attention to detail and the fact that my normal thinking time can be measured in seconds (and for the pedantic - I am aware that all moves can be measured in seconds - in my case there are very few of these seconds!).
I always wish my opponents good luck at the start of games when I am white - not to be rude, disrespectful or anything negative - but because its a nice thing to type. I used to play squash, and always wished my opponents luck in that game too (but then I was lying!).
So the games I win due to the fact that my opponent made a mistake is due to luck not skill? So a GM player is lucky to beat me when I make a mistake? Is that what your telling me? As Fisher stated chess is a game of memorization and whoever knows more theory will win. This is based on the principle that chess is 100% calculatable. No luck here.
Originally posted by kmac27I think Nordly pointed it out in the right way. Luck is sometimes a minor factor and rarely a major factor. FabianFnas gave some nice examples from his own experience, especially the one where the opponent didn't came to the tournament. Maybe this player just ate the wrong food the night before, and got sick?
So the games I win due to the fact that my opponent made a mistake is due to luck not skill? So a GM player is lucky to beat me when I make a mistake? Is that what your telling me? As Fisher stated chess is a game of memorization and whoever knows more theory will win. This is based on the principle that chess is 100% calculatable. No luck here.
Here another (theoretical) example:
Second last round of an RHP duel tournament. The following players progressed (ratings in parenthesis):
Patzer (1000)
Strong Guy (2100)
Lucky (1800)
Cheat (2300)
Pairings are random (luck!) and are as follows:
Patzer vs Lucky
Strong Guy vs Cheat
Lucky and Cheat win their games and progress to the final. Final round starts, but Cheat was banned because of engine use. Lucky is the tournament winner.