How much of chess is luck?

After reading your posts for a while now, I do not consider you capable of judging my points (or most people's), so have at it all you want to...but for God's sake learn to edit your replies and take out the extraneous post history...it's not hard.

It must be hard, trying to pretend to be disaffected and nonchalant about how wound up you are, then realize that you've posted a couple dozen times.  Just chill.  You've never gotten my goat, and you never will.  It's just the way things are, so accept it...you'll have a lot less gnashing of teeth in the long run.  Find a girlfriend, or whatever floats your Tuna boat...

Even if you flat out busted me on being wrong about something, it still wouldn't work, for the simple reason that I don't care about you as much as you do about me (or, more accurately, care about seeing me get what you think is coming to me).

luck.  I'm going to be repeating myself again since you asked.  while you can consider yourself lucky/unlucky because of how your opponent moves.  the question is not asking how lucky are you in chess.  the question is "how much of chess is luck" someone always has control during the game so none of the pieces are moved by luck.  you are always responsible for your board-state,  getting into a forced position is not bad luck... you got outplayed.  simple.  you can perceive the question differently if it pleases you

I think you should not be posting pictures of children without their parents's approval.

I never said bad luck was a part of chess, it isn't.  But good luck is.  Whether it is perception or not is irrelevant.  The whole world is perception.  If you take out any of the mental and personal aspects of the game then what is chess?  It would be two engines playing.

But if good luck doesn't exist in chess then luck as a concept doesn't exist either if we take away the idea that an event that has a high probability of happening, but doesn't happen is good luck on the part of the recipient.  It isn't bad luck on the part of the person who is in control of it though, obviously.

But, as we've said before, people don't like to believe that luck played a part in their wins.  Funny how many people claim their opponent got lucky if they win though!

can you just read the end of your post for me?  are you upset that people don't like to believe that luck played a part in their win yet irked by people who claim their winning opponent got lucky at the same time?  how can you contradict yourself in back to back sentences?  good luck is in and bad luck is out?  really?  give me a break.  I can't argue with your emotions.  I'm tired and my girlfriend is yelling at me for spending to much time talking to idiots on a chess forum.  And she's right... its really not worth my time.

I have said I was lucky, in one or two of my wins before.

But 98% of the time, it was all skill!

"you'd be wrong" is not an argument.

"your statement would be vague, fuzzy, and inaccurate" - please give us a statement that describes my shooting example precisely and accurately.

Total lack of argumentation in your post makes me think that probabilistic model might be the right one.

The only luck in chess is when your opponent's skill fails. Thus, chess is pure skill. 

pure skill when i win and bad luck when i lose.

Every your win is due to your opponent's skill failures. If he commits no mistakes you can't win.

I often do not agree with you, but this time I have no choice. I know it sounds offensive or insulting to say what you said, but I believe it's actually the truth. And that's the scary part. He really IS not capable of judging others viewpoints. I dont mean that as an insult in any way, I just think it's actually they way he's put together.

It all nice and well to pretend I made this post in a vacuum, but clearly I did not...you've already read my arguments over the past several pages.  Go back and read them again...they have not changed, I assure you.  As for a better example, it's simple...just replace "got lucky" with "performed better than expected" (showed skill), and replace "got unlucky" with "made an avoidable mistake" (failed to apply skills) in your account.

Shhh...don't remind the daydreamers here that engines do not "give or take" luck .  It blows away their whole argument about chess.

Clearly a game with no luck, then.  Because in games with luck, a player can do everything objectively "right" and still lose...you know, due to bad luck.  Thanks for helping clarify the truth.  Man, you really walked into that one.

We are not as far apart as you think.  What I do in inane threads like this (and others I'm sure you could point to) serves two purposes...first, disabusing some people that consider themselves authorities or enlightened in some area that their ideas/logic holds up under scrutiny, which actually serves those people well in the long run (much better to be upbraided in some chess forum than to lose one's job or the like by having an overblown opinion of one's grasp of reality), and second, exposing poor logic/bad conclusions so that this kind of mis-enlightenment does not proliferate...which serves everybody *else* well, which is ultimately more important.  If there were a lot more people like me around, people around the world would not believe Fischer and Kasparov had 190 IQs just because some idiot bloggers took the word of of some jackasses who had no idea what they were talking about.  For example .

That sounds arrogant, I would surmise...but I don't do this on threads/topics I have no expertise in...thus, you will generally not find me posting in Elroch's evolution thread, etc.  I only have a layman's knowledge there.  In computer systems, or game design (or a number of other topics I won't mention lest butthurt trolls that I have sent limping off into the underbrush in the past mysteriously start threads on them to harass me...*cough* Smositional and Tuna *cough*), I have more expertise and will exercise my opinion.  Some people might feel insulted when I do , but it not my primary goal to insult anyone.  I only insult people that ask for it, either by personal attacks, or generalized douchbaggery affecting forum users in general.  You can throw the OP in the latter category, by virtue of posting a theoretically legit query in post #1, then kicking the first reply in the teeth in post #3.  Not exactly someone looking for true enlightenment...but someone with an agenda and an axe to grind (post #5).

I think good chess skills is about increasing your luckchances. If you put your pieces in a lucky pattern, then you havs skills.  Protecting your pieces denies your opponent luck., good center brings luck, a safe kingcastle denies your opponent luck. Active pieces brings luck. Good piececoordination brings luck and takes away luck from your opponent. Good calculation brings luck. Good development brings luck. Good pawnstructure brings luck, getting a pawn to the queeningsquare brings luck.  Bad play from your opponent brings luck and brilliant play from your opponent can steal luck. 

Chess is a lot about luckmanagement, and managing luck is skills.

If you consistently perfom better/worse than expected that means you estimated skill should be updated (e.g. rating recalculation). Otherwise peforming better/worse than expected is just a normal fluctuation around your average skill level. This and mistakes are random unpredictable events.

I don't know what "avoidable" mistakes are because no human can avoid them consistently. In what sense are they avoidable then?