I find it unlucky to have your opponent not show up. Who cares about the point. They may have missed out on a great learning experience. In the game itself there is absolutly no luck. We're not talking about external factors. We're talking about internal factors. The game itself, not the people around the game.
Originally posted by greenpawn34yeah, thanks. I couldn't remember who said it, and felt too lazy to look it up...
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/pi ...[text shortened]... ww.chessville.com/reviews/HowtoBeLuckyinChess.htm
,,,this might help. (excellent review )
Originally posted by NordlysThey would blunder the first time. After that, they're supposed to have learned something from the blunder - it's not like they're robots.
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.
Originally posted by kmac27When I'm about to win or lose a substancial amount of money in a tournament prize, then it's not about learning or not.
I find it unlucky to have your opponent not show up. Who cares about the point. They may have missed out on a great learning experience. In the game itself there is absolutly no luck. We're not talking about external factors. We're talking about internal factors. The game itself, not the people around the game.
Tell me one World Champion in chess that play chess for free, just to learn something? I'm not there, yet... 🙂
Originally posted by danilopThey're not robots, so they are prone to make mistakes even when they should have learned something from the last mistake. Even the best players sometimes make big blunders.
They would blunder the first time. After that, they're supposed to have learned something from the blunder - it's not like they're robots.
Originally posted by kmac27How can you separate the game from the players? I'll try one more example. After that I think I'll just give up...
I find it unlucky to have your opponent not show up. Who cares about the point. They may have missed out on a great learning experience. In the game itself there is absolutly no luck. We're not talking about external factors. We're talking about internal factors. The game itself, not the people around the game.
In one game (I am too lazy to try to find it) I analysed quite thoroughly on the analysis board and found a move that looked like it would give me very good winning chances. So I closed the analysis board and quickly played the move. That is, I quickly played a move, then immediately realised that I had put the knight on the wrong square where it was free to be taken without compensation. I wouldn't say I lost due to bad luck; I lost due to being stupid enough to not check and recheck my move before submitting it. However, my opponent didn't do anything to provoke this blunder, and it's not something I do in every game. Also, exactly the same kind of blunder could have led to a different result if the misplaced piece would have ended up on a square that was protected. My opponent had no influence on this at all. So how can it be anything else than luck for xym? And if you say it's about the game, not the people, how would you separate this in this case? Would you say that my opponent won because of the person on the other side of the board, but the game itself wasn't actually won?
Originally posted by tamuziI disagree. It was luck for my opponent because his actions had no influence on the outcome. It wasn't bad luck for me because I could have avoided it (I'd rather say I am lucky when I do this kind of thing and don't get punished for it).
If you say that your opponent had the good fortune (luck) of you blundering you must also say that you had the bad luck of blundering
When players are playing for money and not for the love of the game it is a sad scene. The prize money from compiled chess tournaments could hardly pay minimum wage for all of the hours spent studying chess added to the hours of playing chess to the majority of chess players who enter small tournaments. Unfortunately I find chess the biggest waste of time that is too addicting to get away from.
I guess I'd put it like this: There's no "randomness" in chess, as there is in most other games, like poker or Magic the Gathering (anyone here heard of that one?) or similar games.
However, individual players can get "lucky" in individual games.
In Game 5599004 (pgn below), it looks like a sacrificed a pawn to open up lines for my major pieces, doesn't it? Well, the truth is, I didn't sacrifice anything. I just gave away the pawn because I overlooked it; but it all worked out in the end anyway. I guess you could say I was "lucky" in that respect.