Chess is like playing Poker. How much is "Luck" and "Bluffing a factor to chess?

I recommend the joining the poker forum community https://www.cardschat.com/

https://www.cardschat.com/poker/strategy/how-to-play/

https://www.cardschat.com/poker/strategy/become-a-winning-poker-player/

I will consider that. Any recommended apps?

No luck in chess Sir, only strategy and tactics. This is it.  

.

Luck always exists until you calculate until check mate. It exists the same way among grandmasters as among 500s playing a game, just in different amounts.

How much do LeelaZero and Stockfish bluff when they play? Could they do with some tips?

In common sense terms, chess has no luck.

Of course, you can argue that who your opponent is, whether there's a power cut, or everything since the big bang leading up to this moment is pure luck, and in one sense that's valid, but really ... Nah. 

Poker has a much more luck component than chess (which is pure skill), though a far greater skill component than many realise (play against a poker pro and find out, lol).  They're not really comparable.  In the same way you can't compare poker to roulette, since roulette is 100% luck.

Don't wanna start another long luck debate but there is luck in chess. When you make a move, you never do it based on 100% information on the position because its not humanly possible. Therefore your move will always have some amount of random effects that you're not aware of. As a simplified practical example, you take a pawn with queen. The queen now protects against a mate threat that you didn't notice before making your move. You've now survived against the odds, by luck.

This happens in some form and in some amounts with every move you make that isn't calculated until check mate or a draw.

Guess that depends upon whether you count ignorance as luck or player error.

Luck usually refers to random factors outside of agent control.

That's missing the point tho. Ignorance itself isnt luck, but ignorance leads to a situation where luck is involved. Playing perfectly gives you an opportunity to not have luck involved, but it doesn't mean it isn't luck when you don't play perfectly. Ignorance is also forced in chess played by human because of our capabilities.

Cards > Chess

Guess that depends upon whether or not you count the consequences of ignorance, or other player error, to be luck or not.  I wouldn't see it as direct randomness (like cards or the lottery) so I wouldn't include it in 'luck' but attribute it to a skill failure. 

I guess the issue, for me, is that if a mega computer could theoretically play a balanced game perfectly and thereby be guaranteed the win, then that game isn't based on luck.  Chess could be that, but poker never will be that.  Perfect play doesn't guarantee the win in a hand of poker.  It does in chess.  The fact that humans aren't perfect doesn't really mean the game isn't a game devoid of chance, it just means that humans are flawed.

YMMV, as it seems a semantic debate anyway

It is semantic in a way. But it's also funny to call a game 100% skill based that in theory a random number generator (set to generate moves) can in theory play a perfect game in. I think we can say for sure it can't be 100% skill based but some would argue whatever determines the outcome there doesn't fit the definition of luck anyway.

Yes, it does seem funny.  But remember, randomness can always simulate skill and/or agency in all things.  I mean, its possible this reply was typed by a monkey at a keyboard with no thought behind it at all.  That doesn't mean the language itself is random.  Chess isn't a luck/random based game, though a random number generator could play a perfect game, anymore that English is a random system though a random letter generator could reproduce every possible sentence.

Yes, english isn't a random system but one could type perfect english without knowing the language just by hitting random letters on a keyboard. That would be luck and we'd be able to even measure the probability of that event.

Kind of mixing two different things here. System itself isn't luck or generated by chance, but you can succeed in using that system by chance/luck.

Totally true. 

Chess, the game/system, isn't a system which involves any luck in the system, but it is possible to win through generating moves entirely at random as this is true for everything.

Poker, in contrast, does involve randomness in the game/system, and it is therefore possible to lose even with perfect play.

I therefore view chess as being a game devoid of luck, and poker a game which involves a degree of luck.

But it all seems largely a semantic debate.   You have your way of using the word luck in this context, I have mine.  So long as we each know exactly what the other means by our usage there's no real disagreement.

I know poker