Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

and the fallibility of computers playing chess too.
Regarding 'game theory' I would think maybe over 90% of players would know little or nothing about what that phrase refers to.
Game theory as a side-topic of the thread seems legitimate.
Set theory would be too.
In each of those two subjects - there's possibilities or 'attributes' as it were.
If that's the word.
As to - is there a single unified theory on each that most experts recognize?
And - is there a lot of controversy within each of the topics?
For example perhaps each subject has 'current frontiers'.
The basics of mathematics are well established but like other subjects math keeps having new frontiers as new things are discovered.

This was just a bunch of twaddle allowing you to mention your eleven tournaments in a row. I would say you're welcome, but you've proven in the past that your ability to insert grandiose self-congratulations into almost anything is not luck, it is preparation. Much like your poor anecdotal evidence.

From Wiki:
"Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions.[1] It has applications in many fields of social science, and is used extensively in economics, logic, systems science and computer science.[2] Initially, game theory addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which a participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by the losses and gains of the other participant. In the 1950s, it was extended to the study of non zero-sum games, and was eventually applied to a wide range of behavioral relations. It is now an umbrella term for the science of rational decision making in humans, animals, and computers. "
'Rational'.
There would seem to be a big overlap with psychology.
Controversy in game theory? Would seem to be obviously so.
Set theory? Again - yes.
Semantics of the word 'luck'.
Do such semantics matter? Yes because the word is used a lot.
But its only a word. Meant to serve us. Not us to serve the word.
Doesn't always work out that way.

Oh, grandiose self-congratulation, is it? How come my anecdotal evidence is so poor when it actually proves what I'm saying? In any case, you lost your argument theoretically, without any need for the evidence I supplied. Moreover, most people here can supply instances where the outcome of games they played was influenced by luck.

As ever, Dio, when you are out reasoned and out argued, which isn't difficult, you always resort to making personal attacks. All you're doing is showing how pathetic your reasoning ability is. I already knew that but there are people reading this who may not know it yet.

Incidentally, Dio, have you ever won a tournament or even won a lesser prize? Have you ever played chess competitively? Do you even know what you're talking about or is this thread another of your vehicles for making personal attacks?

I'll let you know if you ever actually out-reason anybody. Hasn't happened yet with anyone past their teens.

To answer your frustrated "and another thing" edit, this thread is not about competitive chess, so you are the one turning it into a vehicle here. Even if I have won eleventy-one tournaments I would not have brought it up in the crassly transparent way you did. That's one of the main differences between you and...well, most people around the world. They understand that accolades must come from without, or they are meaningless ego.

How would you know? Also aren't you being rather ... grandiose? You'll let me know?

If we defined "chess" as a game without element of chance, the definition would be objectively imperfect. That is because chess is a game where it is possible to operate by pure chance and achieve optimal outcome. This isn't even a human factor per se (which would indeed introduce another dozen factors of luck), just a part of the game rules.

But game theory is not interested in that. The purpose of game theory is to determine optimal strategy to achieve the best possible outcome. That is of course to compute the best possible move. While the game allows you to arrive at the best possible move by pure calculation or pure chance, from game theory perpective the latter is not relevant, as it's not the optimal strategy.

You've never won a tournament. You haven't even played in one, more than likely, so don't lecture me and people here with your grabbed-from-Google stuff, which you don't even know how to link together into a half-decent argument.

Actually, you aren't even aware of the meaning of the Freudian concept of ego. Anyway, your self-absorbed and self-centred egotism is inappropriate at any time but expecially in the Festive Season. Give it a rest.

In my opinion, this discussion is concerned with luck in chess. I believe that is discernable from the title and all chess is competitive to some degree since it's a kind of warfare between the controllers of two stylised armies. So all chess is competitive but tournament chess is highly competitive. Much more so than league or county chess, when we play for a team and it's the team effort that really counts. In tournament chess, each individual is either there to compete in order to bring himself up to a standard where he can compete effectively or is attempting to emerge as top dog out of a field of maybe 60 or 80 entrants, each of whom is a "competitive person", playing in a competitive spirit.

Now, if we're just messing around at chess and practising, then the idea of "luck in chess" isn't even important, since we aren't going all out to try to win our games. Consequently, the idea of "luck in chess" really only applies to the kind of highly competitive games in tournament chess and the like.

In case you don't know it, I've just shown your claim that we're not talking about "competitive chess" to be incorrect on more than one level. You won't understand you just lost another argument and that's the trouble. I bet you can invent half a dozen reasons why you haven't just lost yet another argument. None of them will be worth a light.

Yes quite right, Kotschmot. Game Theory is primarily used to apply the theory of games to real life situations which are often very far indeed from being games, by treating the potentially life or death r.l. situation AS a game and then by using probability theory to determine the best strategy, by scoring gains and losses, or inputs and outputs as an attempted reflection of the real life gains and losses which are involved.

Clearly we are able to treat chess as another such r.l. situation in itself and apply Games Theory to it. I do not think it would be concerned with the calculation of the "best possible move" since that is not discernible. We have no means of calculating "best possible moves" in any but the simplest chess situations. If the K is under attack and all of its moves bar one would result in it being checkmated, we know what the best possible move is.

Since probability theory is so important to Game Theory and since probability theory in turn implies a statistical approach to the likelihood of identifiable outputs, then chance and therefore luck is an accepted part of game theory itself. Ordinary players do in fact apply game theory to chess, by deciding on a general stategy to meet a specific situation. To attack or to defend, to play faster or to play more slowly and carefully, to play a complex, book opening or a simpler, more intuitive one, to go for the highly tactical attacking option or the slower, more positional one, which takes longer but which is safer, to stoicly defend when in trouble or to sacrifice for a counter-attack .... all these are examples of game theoretical options we may choose from. Our choices can be influenced by things like "how much do we need to achieve a specific result? are we tired? do we know about specific strengths or weaknesses of our opponent? ..... and so on.

The OP question is an interesting one and, having forgotten my previous posts in this thread, I think I will start from scratch again.

Chess is fundamentally a deterministic game. But firstly, if you are playing an imperfect player, there is uncertainty about whether they will blunder. So the action of them blundering is correctly viewed as "luck".

Even in the case the opponent plays predictably (say the opponent is a tablebase playing the alphabetically top move), a specific imperfect player has uncertainty about what will happen because they are unable to do a complete calculation, so uncertain if _they_ will blunder. Whether they do may be their responsibility, but it is still accurately described as luck.

The uncertainty being in the beliefs of a player, it is appropriate for them to have a probabilistic model of what will happen, either a precise one (eg based on the player Elos) or a rough one ("I have a 70% chance of winning from here").

Luck is no more and no less than the variation in outcomes within the uncertainty of a specific viewpoint.

So the answer is "yes".

Agreed.

Thanks. You're agreeing with me if you read back through the thread. Luck is subjective, and does not objectively exist in the logical construct of a game of chess the way many on this thread like to imagine. But then, many of those people also believe in the paranormal/supernatural, so...

Uncertainty, minus a personal perspective, is not "luck". Luck is not a force, nor does it enjoy any existence outside of the human mind.

In a game design context, luck is even more restrictive, and the term applies to constructs that actually add unknown outcomes purposefully. Chess is the exact opposite of such games, and tries to remove any vestiges of the random/unknown.

Chess is a game of perfect information. If human beings cannot process the perfect information in front of them, that causes uncertainty...via a lack of skill. If a chess player could play perfectly, they could never lose...because there is no actual luck in the game to change the outcome.

You couldn't show a dog the way to a fire hydrant. Unilateral declarations of your victories are par for the course.

There is no such thing as luck. The fine-tuning of the universe is evidence of design. There is empirical evidence for the God of the Bible. Because God is all-knowing, he knows everything that will happen before it happens. Therefore, there is no "luck"; everything that happens is a part of God's ultimate plan.

On paper, no.

In practice, yes.

I won my first tournament at 7. I played first board for my team in high school. I represented the US Air Force in Athens. But no, I don't waste my life on chess tournaments. There are far more important things to achieve in life. Competitive chess (or sports, etc.) are played either for fun (i.e. unstructured with my prizes/trophies, or very occasionally for the experience of it, like going to concerts), or...for the insecure to convince themselves they have worth. There are also some obsessive types that play endlessly for pure love of the game, but that is very narrow existence.

You should understand this underlying concept, because it drives your entire history here on the forums. Sorting marbles and pawning old books doesn't jive with your self-image, so you ergo must have something to crow about in your life. You have chosen "well-playing board game amateur almost good enough to mean something" to hang your hat on...congrats. I have made other choices. I am happy with "good enough to beat most people I meet without adding any drudgery to my leisure time".

Peddle your prophecies elsewhere.

There is such thing. If you play a losing move, you would be lucky to win the game.