How much of chess is luck?

Objectively "right" in chess is playing the best move each time. But best moves are unknown during the game and no amount of training, no thinking algorithm can give you this knowledge (with the exception of theoretical positions). Best move is a target we are aiming but can't see. At the end after you apply all your skill and knowledge it's a guess, you take your chances and hope for luck.

I stay with my first oppinion :

The less you know the more luck you need.

At the end after you apply all your skill and knowledge, there's no other step.  You don't need to guess, you don't need to hope for luck, you don't need to pray for magical gods to help you, you don't need to make sacrifices or rituals...you just need to wait for the other player to apply their skills, then prove you can outplay them by applying yours again.  If they blunder, you take the win, if they don't, you fight to prove you can hold the line or eke out a small positional advantage...through skill.

There's no point in the fear you are talking about.  Stop hoping for luck where there isn't any.

When I make a choice among candidate moves without knowing their exact consequences that's a guess. Then I hope that my choice will be as close to the best move as possible. That's how I see it... but it looks like we are going in circles here. I thank you for discussion and wish you all the best!

Humans can't, and never will, make the "best" moves.  Just make *your* best moves, and then have confidence in them, but adapt and learn.  Don't pull a Kasparov and dash your ego on the rocks of the Berlin Defense over and over when you can just avoid playing into it.  Don't fear that your opponent is going to best you, which is the flip side of hoping you made the best move.  The existence of hope requires a situation that is potentially bad and that one fears in some fashion, but chess is as level a playing field as there is, and has no significant consequences of any kind.  Why hope for luck?  Isn't it better to hope for the "deserved" outcome?  If your opponent has played a great game to beat you, and then blunders it away, you have learned nothing.  Play your best game, and if you have to hope for something, hope to see your opponent's very best game.  Good luck to you.

This is a testament to the absurdity of the luck in chess argument.  I could not have written a better one.

Here's hoping all of you put your pieces in lucky patterns and achieve good calculations that make luck for you.   Drive for your queeningsquares, and don't forget to kingcastle.  #luckchances #Vikings!

Great question, I never thought about it before.

I think typically the definition of "luck" is *something outside the player's control* such as the roll of dice or flip of a card. In chess only black v white is outside of the player's control. All gameplay is thru purposeful decisionmaking of the players, which I believe falls into the definition of "skill".

Now here is the crux: "Skill" doesn't mean perfect but instead is a measure of somebody's ability. My skill is quite poor unfortunately, while a GM has tremendous skill. My poor skill level results in my poor gameplay decisions. Thus what you are describing as "good luck" for my opponent is in fact really the outcome of my poor skill (even when I have no idea what to do and just pick a move without understanding its consequences).

In contrast by the OP's definition of "luck", then yes I am lucky to win when I do.  =)

Example of luck :

a mouseslip from the opponent.

There's no luck in chess, unless a player's inability to solve a problem has to be considered as his opponent's luck.

Chess is about going into a better position than the current one. That's a problem. The tools to do that are, typically, based on heuristics and precise calculation. Sometimes a player fails to solve a problem (he/she should normally do with precision) because different factors (lack of time, attention, knowledge, etc.).  But it's difficult (even absurd) to elaborate such situation as his rival's luck.

I agree that chess involves heuristics. Are heuristics not based on luck?

Deary me, what a churlish post. Fortunately most of the people posting on this thread aren't this mean spirited.

Churlish:

"Sensible answers only please."

"The only question for me is why people deny this?"

"I have a sense that people have such a fixed mindset that they've never even considered this question."

"I'm more interested in why people are in denial about this."

"Mr. 1474 believes he's not a beginner, LOL!"

"You also lack the ability to read, apparently."

That's just quotes the OP made on the first few pages...reaping what you've sown?

Just what I need. Another stalker. 

You might wish you were that important.  Even amongst the small minority of Scottish posters you are not the most annoying...certainly not worth following around.

Racist too. 

Still can't judge points correctly, I see.  It's an example of how egotistical and absurd your conclusion is.  Seeing how I have Scottish blood myself, let's just say I am judging you on your own individual merits...or distinct lack thereof .

Sure, we all believe you. 

It's just you, son.  Don't get some complex like you are leading some group of like-minded revolutionaries.  You lead with your ass on this thread, and it's been handed back to you.  Own it.

I'll respond when you've finished (re)editing your post.