Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

That's inevitably the case with any thread.

Guys seriously, define “luck”

Good idea.
If definitions of luck vary - then positions on the subject will vary.
The same with definitions of 'chess' and even the word 'in'.
Regarding AE and cp - they don't get it that others do know 'what they're talking about'.
But we had at least one person claim that the fact there are people in the game means there's 'no luck'.
In other words he dramatically got it the wrong way around - trying to claim the exact reverse of the reality.
It would be like claiming 'the world is round - therefore it doesn't spin.'
or 'animals have legs - therefore they can't run'.
Such behaviour is interesting!

Another GM weighing in....

Korobov says around 1:15 here that, "Okay, that was a big fight. We were lucky of course, but without luck, no serious result is possible… unless you’re Magnus Carlsen.”

.

He joins many other GMs, for example:

1) Carlsen himself said here that, “I think the world cup is pretty overrated seeing as it’s such a small sample size so it sort of annoys me when titles are always appreciated so much even though that particular title can be a lot of luck or at least some luck”

2) Fabiano wrote here that, "There is definitely an element of chance in any individual chess game or tournament"

3) Giri here (around 35:26) said , "In this event in the last two days I have to say I've never been this lucky before, it really fell my way like more than ever. Indeed it was just like a pure coincidence that I managed to win in the end.”

4) Finegold here (around 6:41) said, "There's a lot of luck in chess, which is hard to explain to the gawking rabble”

.

Seems like they all grasp that since chess requires the selection of a move, and there only finitely many legal moves to choose from, that the selection of a good/bad move is not a wholly representative expression of player skill. They also likely understand that when conditioning on player strength, there are only a small number of "critical" positions in any single game-- two similarly matched GMs would both filter down to the same few candidate moves but might end up selecting different moves from their candidates. Hence why the long-run average of two similarly matched players will reflect their ELO imbalance, but the outcome of any single game is indeterminable (this is pretty much the definition of luck; the behavior is exactly that of a coin flip).

I basically agree with that. Except maybe the part at the very end in parentheses.
Finegold's statement is especially correct.
And also:
"two similarly matched GMs would both filter down to the same few candidate moves"
Yes that probably happens a big percentage of the time and in all critical positions in all GM games its probably very rare they don't have at least one 'candidate move' in common on their list for whatever critical position.
--------------------------
In lesser chess though - a higher percentage of mistakes and bigger mistakes would be made in non-critical positions (they are 'critical' because somebody's making a mistake) and the more critical ones too.
--------------
In another forum a very few people have tried to insist that chess is a draw with best play by both sides or even that that is 'proven'.
But both claims are invalid because 'best play' has never been 'solved' for chess yet and that is a daunting project where tablebases are struggling with even only 8 pieces on board.
Plus no 'perfect game by both sides' has even been established to have ever happened. Again because the game is not solved.

Another find for my favorite thread to end the year! GM Benjamin Bok had this to say today: "I did not see the stalemate idea from afar, I just got as lucky as you can be."

He joins other top GMs who recognize the reality that chess, as most everything in life, contains elements of luck. For example:

1) Carlsen himself said here that, “I think the world cup is pretty overrated seeing as it’s such a small sample size so it sort of annoys me when titles are always appreciated so much even though that particular title can be a lot of luck or at least some luck”

2) Fabiano wrote here that, "There is definitely an element of chance in any individual chess game or tournament"

3) Giri here (around 35:26) said , "In this event in the last two days I have to say I've never been this lucky before, it really fell my way like more than ever. Indeed it was just like a pure coincidence that I managed to win in the end.”

4) Finegold here (around 6:41) said, "There's a lot of luck in chess, which is hard to explain to the gawking rabble”

5) Korobov says around 1:15 here that, "Okay, that was a big fight. We were lucky of course, but without luck, no serious result is possible… unless you’re Magnus Carlsen.”

They all grasp that since chess requires the selection of a move, and there only finitely many legal moves to choose from, that the selection of a good/bad move is not a wholly representative expression of player skill. They also likely understand that when conditioning on player strength, there are only a small number of "critical" positions in any single game-- two similarly matched GMs would both filter down to the same few candidate moves but might end up selecting different moves from their candidates. Hence why the long-run average of two similarly matched players will reflect their ELO imbalance, but the outcome of any single game is indeterminable (this is pretty much the definition of luck; the behavior is exactly that of a coin flip).

Yawn. Same old goofy arguments reliant on laymens' understandings of luck in game design.

GMs do not understand what luck is in the context of game design. You might as well ask a soccer player to explain how stadiums are built, how to grow the best grass, how to make effective sports shoes, etc. Most GMs also make no distinction between chess and tournament rules.

I'll come back when/if something new actually emerges.

Of course, there is.

There are always people or stuff to distract you.

If you are lucky, you win, if not, you get disqualified for wearing jeans, like Carlsen.

As the saying goes: Hard work is 100 percent luck.

Hard work is 100 luck.

Only the luckiest get to do hard work, the rest are just relaxing, and hence badly MISSING on all the most interesting stuff.

Relaxation never builds your mind, it's half animalistic, primitive to the core.

Hard work, on the other hand, gradually leads to God.

In a couple of millenia, I mean, but you must start somewhere.

Long lasting forum.
Since 2011.
And the opening poster still a member. Strong player too.
As to definitions of luck they can vary.
There's a lot of words like that.
Heard this one a long time ago:
'Luck is where opportunity meets preparation'.

Here, you're saying that the claim that chess is a draw with best play is "invalid" because "best play" hasn't been identified.

That assumption is very suspect due to the metaphorical nature of "best play" as used in this manner. However, this rather sleek objection isn't necessessary. It's intuitive rather than rational, so I will give a rational clarification. For this purpose, I would define "good moves" as those which don't alter the predicted game outcome or, since some people prefer needless complications, they don't alter the "game-theoretic value", which is the same thing but jargonised. Incidentally, "predicted outcome" or "theoretical value" are both metaphorical, since it can be agreed by all that their specifics are unknown. They may, however, be regarded as useful ideals.

Using "good" in this way is completely in line with English Language useage throughout the ages. "Good" refers to "good for purpose". The primary purpose of any chess move is that it doesn't cause the game to be lost by force, so any good move fulfils that criterion.

My preferred claim is that chess is drawn with good moves on both sides. Since any good move, including any hypothetical "excellent" or "best" move, is also a good move, my claim is correctly stated. I would agree with you that the "best move" claim, which is unnecessary and which obscures rather than clarifies, should be avoided.

Anybody can claim anything.
That's the only part I read of that.
One can 'claim' the moon is provolone cheese.
No perfect game of chess has ever been established to have ever happened.
How do I know? Because if it was a fact then that would be publically known.
'Established' in other words.
But its not. Not ever. Yet.
Result: Chess isn't solved. Anybody can 'claim' anything.
'Claim' is nearly always a dubious word in these forums.
Settlers crossing the US in the 1800's staked 'claims'.
But this website isn't much of a 'claims office'.
----------------------------------
And the subject is about luck in chess.
Is there? Many people think so or know so.
Is there any basis to think there isn't?
Depends on how the meaning of 'luck' is assigned.

Especially if the other player is five levels higher.
Tough for a 'C' player to beat a GM.
The GM is too strong. Its 'rigged' that way.
Unless the GM throws the game to get a payoff.
'Rigging' is something on a ship with sails too.
Tournaments are 'seeded'.
It would be silly for the best players to play each other in the first round.
Similiar in tennis.
Is 'seeding' actually 'rigging'?
You can set the filters here for who you play against.
Does that mean you've 'rigged' who your opponents are?
If you want it to.

Luck is topless women's competitions.

Should stream live, attendance off the charts.

Get paid subscription, become trillionaire.

Janko thinks disagreement is 'bullying'??
Hahahahah!
Happy New Year.

Try to understand what I wrote, although it might need concentration. "Luck" is unpredictability, or rather our subjective perception of the effects of unpredictability on events that affect us. It exists in the same way that it exists in all human endeavours.

Pommery Champagne is good. Happy New Year.

There is no definition for luck that would allow a reasonable argument for it not playing a role in chess.

That's a new, and foolish, claim...so I will address just the new claim itself and not argue to an impasse with you (again) about a game designer's definition of luck and why it is more correct in this context.

Let's ask a technology that gathers information worldwide from what people publish and post to draw its conclusions, to see if the argument is "reasonable":

Evaluate: There is no definition for luck that would allow a reasonable argument for it not playing a role in chess. 

ChatGPT said: The statement raises a thought-provoking discussion about whether "luck" plays a role in chess, a game often regarded as a pure test of skill. To evaluate this claim, we must explore the definition of luck and how it might apply to chess:

Defining Luck

Luck can be defined as:

Randomness or Chance: Events occurring by chance rather than design.Unpredictability: Beneficial or harmful outcomes not entirely within a player's control.

Chess as a Skill-Based Game

Chess is typically viewed as a game of complete information:

All pieces, moves, and potential outcomes are visible to both players.Success is determined by skill, strategy, and foresight.

Does Luck Exist in Chess?

No Randomness in the Game Itself:

Chess has no elements of chance, such as dice rolls or card draws. Every position arises from deliberate moves by both players, eliminating inherent randomness.

External Factors Introducing "Luck":

Opponent's Errors: A stronger player's mistake may seem "lucky" for their opponent, but it is not true randomness—it's a result of human fallibility.

Preparation and Knowledge: Being matched against an opponent unprepared for a specific opening can feel like "luck," but it stems from differing levels of preparation.

Time Pressure: Blunders under time constraints could be attributed to mental lapses, which some might equate with luck.

Circumstantial Luck:

Pairings in tournaments, order of opponents, or starting with white pieces (statistically advantageous) are external factors that could be viewed as luck, though these are not intrinsic to the game itself.

Conclusion

The statement, "There is no definition for luck that would allow a reasonable argument for it not playing a role in chess," has merit when considering broader interpretations of luck, particularly those involving external or circumstantial factors. However:

If "luck" is strictly defined as randomness intrinsic to the game, chess remains a game without luck.If "luck" includes unpredictable human errors or external influences, then it arguably plays a role.Ultimately, the perception of luck in chess depends on how one defines and contextualizes "luck."

Google "games without luck", then go ahead and report back the #1 occurring answer used as an example.

Whichever side of this topic someone falls on, your statement here is just illogical and ultimately false. It is obviously perfectly "reasonable" to argue either side of it.

Luck significantly influences the quality of our experiences, determining whether a day turns out to be good or bad.​ A fortunate day might include winning the lottery, while an unfortunate one could involve a car accident. In chess, luck plays a role as well, for instance, if an opponent becomes distracted and inadvertently blunders a piece, it can be considered good luck. Moreover, luck can also be made, for example, intentionally navigating a specific opening trap, even if it doesn't align with the engine's suggestions, can lead to gaining a material advantage. Overall I would say that yes luck plays a part in a chess game and can dramatically change the outcome of the game.