lichess.org
Donate

About Chess

I've been thinking about why chess can be very frustrating for a lot of people, and I've thought about one aspect of this in particular. Could it be that chess has zero element of "luck" to it? In other words, no one 'forced' you to move to a particular square. You chose to do that. And in doing so, if you lose the game, you only have yourself to blame.
Is there another game that is like this (other than the game "GO")? All card games and dice games have a large element of chance to them. Therefore, if you lose, you can always say you were 'unlucky'.
The closest I can think of is some individual sports like darts and golf, but with those there is certainly an element of your own physical skill (you might be taller or able to hit the ball further than others).
Any other games that are 100% mental skill? Thanks for engaging in the topic!
I think, chess has low "luck" element, but not zero.
You chance are around zero, when you playing with much more stronger opponent, rookie will never win GM. Luck will not help him, even if GM will blunder, rookie would not able to exploit this.
(Gm sometimes can blunder open line, or doubling pawns etc., but he strong enough to never blunder pieces. Or once in 5 years.)

But in chess you still have enough chance to win/draw opponent, who stronger (even on 500 points) than you. For example, players rated untill 2200 sometimes blunder pieces or even queens.
We can call it "luck" - and here are nice opportunity to win him.

Lets compare it wis Poker: there are anyone can win even world champion in a single game.
I'm not sure it's the luck aspect. Many games with no luck are appealing without frustration. For instance - darts. In my opinion the thing that can make chess frustrating for people is that the way you improve is more subconscious than anything.

For instance something everybody knows is that tactics are absolutely critical for improvement. But you can do ten hours of tactics a day and still not necessarily be sure you've really improved. And even when it does happen it's not like you feel different or anything. Somehow you just subconsciously think differently and see everything more naturally. Was it the tactics or did you somehow just become better?

And this is further complicated by the strange ways our brains work. For myself and most every strong player I know their improvement was not linear or proportional. It comes in these sort of weird stair steps. It's seriously like you wake up one day and you're just a hundred points stronger. Not like you do a little work and see 10 points, a bit more work and 20 points and so on. It's just all it once - boom.

I thinks this phenomena also explains why many less skilled players are absolutely obsessed with openings. Their you have a very conscious feedback mechanism and you can even see it in your games when you catch somebody out with some tricky opening prep. But the problem there is openings without 'skill' aren't going to translate into rating gains. So you end up spending all this time learning all these openings and ideas and then somehow still get crushed on the board. And that's when people start blaming things like IQ, or genetics, etc.. which is complete nonsense. It might cap your potential but that potential is going to be far beyond what most will ever reach. And this argument is generally done at far lower levels - people saying things like they can't be 2000 because of genetics. It's nonsense.

So fundamentally it's a game where you do hours upon hours of work to train your brain to act in a way you probably won't even consciously recognize. Not something many people have the discipline for.
I totally agree, LM OhNoMyPants. People usually go the easy way. But unless you're a genius you won't improve much without hard work and doing the right things. It takes patience and discipline to get better and that's such a slow process that many times you think you're going nowhere. It's like learning a new language. It takes years to become fluent.
Chess is not frustrating if analyzing own games. It is only frustrating from time to time if one doesnt. Because what people dont understand makes them angry. Really, it is non understanding, thats all.
Thanks for the great responses! I appreciate the detailed discussion of subconscious understanding of the game. I suppose my post was meant to elucidate the unique nature of chess in relation to the term "luck" as it is generally perceived. With respect to darts, we can still point to the skill of using your muscles to project the dart towards the board and some may have more natural "talent" at doing that (same for possibly shooting a basketball or other such neuromuscular task), but what I think separates chess is that there is no component of "chance". Even when rr2049 mentions a GM blundering, he/she may not have "seen" that they blundered prior to the move, but they intentionally moved the piece where they wanted it, and that cost them the game. I suppose one could say they were "lucky" that their opponent didn't see their mistake prior, and in recognizing that, maybe I should have used the word "chance" instead of "luck". Thanks again for everyone's great responses!

And yes, immediately after I posted I realized that someone is probably going to say "checkers", but I figured that was a given.
@OhNoMyPants has given many very good insights. I started here as a 1400 player, in 2014. Now I am 1900, but I'm really struggling to get to the 2000s. Actually, I am barely keeping myself beyond 1900s. I'm not still really sure what is blocking me. If someone would like to check my games (especially Mr. Lichess Master @OhNoMyPants , who is a very strong player, but anyone could give me an insight), I'd appreciate that. Maybe someone could help me figuring out what is holding me back from improvement.
@gabrr82 You can get over 2000 by studying lichess analysis of your games. Also I suggest work on your endgame skills.

I noticed the people who win spend more time making decisions. They move slower to make sure they're making the best move. I'm gradually learning how to manage my time to do that.

You might be using a too fast time control. 10+5 has been working for me. I also have tried 15+10 but I was unable to move that slow.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.