Does winning involve any luck ?

You all could try practising writing concise/articulate posts instead though?

(That also works reliably every time.)

This is not a blog. It is a forum discussion?

It’s not about trying to make chess 100% scientific. It’s about remembering that chess is a two player game. What my opponent does may be out of my control, but it’s not out of his control. Luck would be if it depended on something that NEITHER of us controlled. The only thing outside of both players’ control is determining who plays as white. 

Yes, but our inevitable deviations from correctness is out of our control and when they occur and how bad they are isn't wholly predictable. Sometimes we are lucky and get away with our mistakes; sometimes we do not.

I guess this is the root of our disagreement. I would say that how often I make bad moves and the severity of those bad moves is due to my skill level (or lack thereof). Board vision is a skill, and if I hang a piece because I didn't realize that square was being a attacked by a bishop from the other side of the board, then that is a result of my inferior skill rather than inferior luck.

I agree that how often bad moves are made and how bad they are on average must depend on and reflect skill level. Relative skill or rating also determines how often I win, lose or draw with someone else - so if I play someone with the same rating over and over again, overall I shouldn't win more games than I lose. If I do, then I'd have to wonder if something other than the pure chess skill of the players is affecting the score - maybe psychology. If I play someone rated 200 Elo points higher than me, I could expect to win about 1 out of 4 games, if there are no draws. (Draws are obviously important but don't invalidate the argument.)

Suppose we play 4 games and I win 2 games and lose the other 2. What does that mean in terms of skill? You could say that my opponent's skill in one of the games he lost was below par (average). You could also say I got lucky and/or he was unlucky! I don't think that is just a euphemism to describe what happened. I don't know what the odds are of that happening btw, but I am pretty sure the choosing of losing moves happened by chance in such a way as to allow me to do better than I should against a more skillful player on skill level alone.

Skill is only level when averaged over a number of moves or games. From move to move there is almost always going to be some fluctuation (the magnitude of which will also vary between players, I expect).

that's all good in theory, but what in practice? one thing you can argue is that higher skill = lower influence of luck, but humans are humans... and so we still have a lot of grandmaster "luck" examples anyway.

i think it's at least easy to recognize when you've been lucky, ie, a higher rated player made some terrible blunder that you noticed easily. you know and he knows that he wouldn't do that like over 95% of the time, but we are only human.

depends...we all know about that unexpected in-between move our opponent plays in order to throw off our combination...and to find a refutation to his zwishinzug is LUCK...but you need to have skill to find it even though you didn't consider it before you launched your attack/combination. 

Almost anything we do has the element of luck. Chess is no different.

I wonder how many can pronounce swashanzuck correctly ? Guess it does not matter, as long as you see it and make it.

If I lose and I say " I should have seen the Zwischenzug". Reply " I don't know that one, I beat you with the Swashanzuck".

As Frank somebody said "Luck be my lady tonight."

So luck sometimes happens in chess and is female.

Fitz was probably just copying Frank.  Frank goes back aways.

Frank also had a song, what was it again ? oh yeah - "I did it side ways"...

It is too bad that some like to stalk and troll rather than engage in real conversation or debate.

Yes. The result of a game depends on many things other than what is going on at the board-things we have no way to control consciously or subconsciously. I can't predict if I'm going to get a heart attack at the board or not (Alekhine once said that he wouldn't resign since this might happen to the opponent) or whether the opponent has something really nasty prepared in an opening etc...

Yes there is. Luck in chess is like luck in poker. Just look at this game. I didn't know what I was doing and was banking on being lucky and my opponent messing up. I didn't even think in this game. I just made mlves that "looked" right and remembered Morhpy...

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1233489682

Beautiful!

Chess is one of the few games where there's no luck at all. It's all planning.

Only players who don't see the board as a whole would describe certain moves as 'lucky' - but that doesn't mean it's because of luck that they got a good move - the other one just couldn't see it.

And it's as your friend says, we do see at the highest level that equally-rated players often end up in drawish positions. It's only a matter of who plays less accurate.

Another tip: chess is not relaxing at all - it's top performance and your brains should be sizzling with moves and lines. The more you fuel up the intensity (of thought, not emotion), the more your mind can see (since it's getting activated) and the better you will play. Chess is still the gymnasium of the mind, not the lounge corner .

Incorrect - all the 'cards' are visible right in front of you - you only need to learn to see them. Chess is like a Rubik's cube - it's about getting to know the right combinations. Less accurate combinations lead to a cube with only partially-filled sides; only the master knows how to get  all correct squares.

Also re- not thinking: it's rather crucial in a mind sport What do you think Morphy was doing?
Playing like Morphy is not about imitating his moves; it's about learning how he is thinking. Why he opens certain lines for example. Your opening of the light-squared diagonal for example, is an intermediate-level mistake - the fianchettoed bishop is worth more than a rook, except for some closed positions.