Is there such thing as "luck" 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.

@DiogenesDue

It is not a new claim since I've from beginning argued that luck is a part of the game design of chess. Via a practical example you agreed with me on post #4611. You agreed the particular very small probability scenario would demonstrate luck in chess but stated it is only theoretical due to the small probability, apparently not realizing the same logic applies to other scenarios in chess with far greater probability.

Chess by game design is a multiple choice question, which is designed to allow a player with no knowledge or skill a fair chance to make the perfect choice, or a move as we call it in chess. There is no definition that can get around this.

First, it's pretty clear that I was saying that the notion that it's not even reasonable to make an argument against luck in the game of chess was the "new claim". A claim that is demonstrably false with about 15 seconds of scrutiny.

Second, your interpretation of past posts is comical. What *you* agreed to in August was that the chance of winning a game through "multiple choice" against Magnus or some GM is like winning the lottery 100x. I just said that if you want to claim there's that little luck in the game of chess, then I would not bother arguing against it. The reason is because it would be inherently obvious to anybody that your premise is ridiculous at that point.

"Chess by game design is a multiple choice question" is also ridiculous. Since chess predates "multiple choice" by many centuries, and was not designed by one set of people in the first place...well, it's not even worth addressing....so I'll leave it at that.

You went out of your way to avoid the points I made in my post, so I will assume you do realize that you've got no shot at supporting your claim.

Yes and no like you have to calculate your moves and assume your opponent is making the move that you think so the calculating part is a skill part while you hoping your opponent make the wrong move is luck

Short answer: luck is to be found everywhere.

Long answer: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

I think you could assign at least one definition of luck such that there would be 'no luck' in chess.
But there's more than one definition.
Of so many things.
And Roses are Red Violets are Blue. Chess is Not Solved and Neither is Flu.
-------------------------------------
Happy New Year.
------------------------------------
Roses are Red. Violets are Blue.
There's Luck in Chess but skill has its Due.

Not lazy. Incapable. You made an overreaching claim, and you already know that by any objective measure the idea that somebody arguing against there being luck intrinsic to the game of chess is completely unreasonable...is utterly unsupportable.

That was the new claim. It's now demonstrated to be false. The old stuff is the same old stuff. See you when you win your 100 lotteries, I guess.

@DiogenesDue

"That was the new claim. It's now demonstrated to be false."

Even you don't believe that so why state that?

"See you when you win your 100 lotteries, I guess"

Well yes, according to your big brain logic that'd be the only way to prove there is luck in lottery. See you when I win a consolation prize of 1 euro.

I don't need to "believe" it, it's just objectively true.

You last statement makes no sense at all. Go read your Linux manual or something.

Potion called "liquid luck" from Harry Potter comes to mind. If you guys are talking about that, you're probably right. Something that can be consistently applied in real life, not so much.

It's objectively not true and my last statement makes sense. He said she said.

Yes. Anand 2014 WCC game 8 NC5, pure luck for magnus

Unfortunately, the principles you are drawing on seem to be false. One shouldn't just trust anything one happens to agree with. Yes, I agree that it's reasonable to argue for either side. You use the word "ultimately". Ultimately, any attempt at argument should take into account all aspects of luck, from "a fly lands on a player's nose" type of argument to "I picked up a book at random that morning, opened it at random and proceeded to read about a line in the Blumenfeld Gambit, where black apparently imposes a difficult question upon white. Completely by chance, since I'd only ever faced the Blumenfeld about once before, the person playing black against me that afternoon proceeded to play right through that sacrificial line in the Blumenfeld".

Indeed, exactly that happened to me in a tournament. Not only did I remember the entire line, play it out and win, I was pretty confident that I wouldn't have won had I not read about that line that day. It put me among the prizes again ... part of a run where I won money prizes in ELEVEN consecutive tournaments which I played in.

Of course, you don't like anecdotal. You've mentioned it many times. Trouble is, "anecdotal" often means "evidence from personal experience". If a chemist performs 100 experiments to confirm the results of a complicated series of reactions she is investigating and they all demonstrate the same conclusion, that conclusion is still based on "anecdotal" experience, at least until it's written up and endorsed by peer review. Perhaps even after that, in fact. I've worked as a chemist in a pharma factory btw, before going into the engineering industry.

Take the principle, which you quote, which deals with "chess has no elements of chance: every position arises via deliberate moves etc etc".

That isn't the point. It should state that there are no deliberately introduced chance elements in the rules of chess (except for drawing colours at the beginning, of course). There are so many paths via which chance actually DOES creep into the game and they have been discussed so comprehensively here and in other threads on this subject that ignoring them or pretending they are immaterial is disingenuous at best. Maybe we need MORE than 15 seconds of what you are pleased to call "scrutiny", if we are actually to apply our minds to this question in any meaningful way"?

i think my last game was pretty lucky i blundered but my opponent blundered back instantly right afterword

A lot of people are talking about rigged games.

If we confined the meaning of the word "chess" to game theory, no element of chance is included. If "chess" means the games we all play, the human element (and our inherent unpredictability) enters the equation, letting luck play a part.