I can appreciate the argument that there is no luck in Chess because there is a logical necessity to the way the game unfolds. Nothing is left to chance. There are no dice, no cards, nothing random. So far so good.
But let's compare Chess to Snooker. In Snooker there is nothing left to chance. The balls occupy their respective positions, the players can clearly see them. Everything is thenceforth entirely dependent on the force, spin and direction of the ball. Let's, for the sake of argument, ignore the 'kick' that is sometimes observed in snooker. Nothing is random.
Why then do sports presenters talk of players (sometimes very good ones) being 'unlucky'. What random factor has produced their bad luck? Or are we inadvertantly employing a definition of luck that might have an applicability in Chess?
Surely if the Snooker player was 'skilful' when he potted the black ball, why was he not unskilful when the white went in in unusual circumstances afterwards?
2007-12-25
00:37:14
·
19 answers
·
asked by
tuthutop
2