Is chess inherently a game of zero luck in a realistic setting.

[gray sparrow]

Hi all, I’ve just had a discussion with someone regarding chess and whether there is any luck involved in a practical sense.

I have taken the position that chess as an objectively deterministic game, is fundamentally a skill based with zero luck involved. There are many reasons for this but it boils down to the fact that the person who played better and more accurately will always win. As well as that not just anyone can become a GM of chess even if they are the luckiest person alive it’s simply not enough.

The other position was that since the better player does not always win 100% of the time, the game has an inherent element of luck in a practical sense. They also believe that chess is only deterministic in a philosophical sense as we have not solved the game completely nor are we capable of assessing all the moves and outcomes that are available to us.
They believe that if chess was a true deterministic game there would be an infinite variation of elo ratings.

If anyone is interested in actually discussing this they provided me with a paper discussing the topic of luck in chess. “Measuring skill and chance in games" by Duersch, Lambrecht and Oechssler.

[silver mantle]

There are logical fallacies from both sides. First I will go with your own (really the only example here). Domino, the fictional character of Marvel Comics, would be a GM as its the only "real" example of being the luckiest person alive (if she played chess). If you watched Deadpool 2, you would know what I mean. The opponents would spill drinks at the right time, letting go of chess pieces in the wrong intended position, they would have a light spot in their eye hiding her piece, etc. So the only real fallacy from your side is the statement "luckiest person alive" which can never exist in real life. I did not read the book but there is some luck in the calculation of the other player, which is shown by the improved AI of chess that even GM's cannot beat. That goes to accuracy being the deterministic factor. You can say luck is inherent in the opponents accuracy but it also has to be inherent in your own. Your position is more sound, although the absolute is not completely real. Even GM's are human and have bad days. The clock time is an introduction of luck, constraining the calculation time of both sides. The best example of "clock luck" I have seen lately can be found here, at the end of the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx3nQTbCYD8

[wise willow]

Luck is a weird word, and I think there are definitely luck aspects in chess because humans aren't perfect, you can be lucky in the sense that your opponent doesn't know your opening repertoire, or lucky your opponent didn't see a move, if I for example start a bunch of online games where I start with e4 e5 Qh4, I would be lucky if my opponent didn't know the proper response to this, and deterministic is also a weird way to define chess, outcomes do change, if I play the same moves against opponents more than once they will likely try something different, and I think an inherently lucky person when outside of their opening knowledge can either get lucky and play the best moves, or lucky that they play something their opponent didn't study. While there is no factors In game of random chance from a purely game based perspective, there are factors outside the game that I would consider having luck based elements