How much of chess is luck?

In real life, a casual detail (that ruins our plans) may be considered as luck as the one making a decision hardly has all the information. But in chess there are no hidden pieces nor squares, then a mistake can't be attributed to "luck".

In a way, is like saying that we can't solve a mathematics problem because we have bad luck. Truth is that, in most cases, is because we don't know how to, or we are not paying enough attention, or time is to short, and so on.

Furthermore, blaming "luck" is a sure recipe to not to improve in chess (and other areas too). But if you want to keep using the term, then consider that –in chess– we make our own "luck".

You need to get away from this idea of 'blaming luck'. Luck is also involved in winning. If that wasn't the case, Magnus Carlsen would win every game he played, but he doesn't: This is because he doesn't have absolute foresight of every move he plays and so he depends on a certain amount of luck that he wont get into a position that becomes unplayable for him.

once again your ignoring the point and conjuring up some bullshit conclusion that just because you can't read the information in front of you it means luck is affecting your play.  each player is always responsible for the moves they make.  luck isn't doing shit for you.  Carlsen needs to depend on a certain amount of skill not to get outplayed.

Congratulations, you got a swear word in. 

It seems you have your own definition of luck.

The "apparently" has its reason to be in the definition.

In my view, luck and chance are synonymous with one another and if you're willing to admit chance into chess then you must be willing to admit luck.

So when, in a given chess position, my opponent has a forced mate and he misses it which part of him missing it is success 'through my own actions'?

i feel lucky sometimes that a move i played helps defending against my opponents threats several moves later which i didnt intent for when i played it.

Curiously, I never wrote "chance". Also, it may be difficult for others to follow your ideas if you use "in my view" above the dictionary.

Anyways, you asked and you got some answers and explanations. Then, in everyday people use "luck" because they can't obtain all the info before making a sound decision. But (in that regard) chess is more like mathematics: No such thing as luck.

Finally, sometimes players go beyond what they can (in good probability) calculate and evaluate, because the problems they're presenting to the rival may be more difficult to solve within the constraints of a live game. Then it's speculation.

That's  what I thought.

Every time you get caught in a BS statement you can't back up, you just switch to other posters/replies.  There's a word for that.

No.  That's a ridiculous statement.  People makes decisions every day without 'relying' on luck or chance (since you've now admitted you equate luck with random chance).

With all due respect to drmrboss, that is just a definition problem.  Leela making a bad move might be surprising, but it is categorically not bad luck.  That move was arrived at by exact criteria and Leelas past play learnings, nothing else.  What you could claim is that Leelas very first games where it only was given the rules and had to start learning from nothing were 'luck', but even then, it's not really luck, I'm sure Leela used a set criteria to determine which moves to try in some order...and however arbitrary, that's not luck, unless there is actually a call to a legitimately seeded random number generator, and I find that option rather unlikely for a developer to take.

Hmm... I would say about 13% luck and 83% skill. Chess is all about skill and how many different outcomes of moves that you can figure out. In conclusion, very little about playing chess is luck.

Exactly huss77

You must have a lot of 'skill' if you have any control at all over your opponent's moves in the fixed position you give them after each of your own moves.

Chess isn't Math though: It's a sport, and so, like all sports, it has a degree of luck in it. Whether you use words like 'chance', 'heuristics', or 'speculation', it all equates to luck in the end.

I pretty much agree.

What about the other 4% 13+83=96

This guy literally says "chess is all about skill" and you have built all of your arguments so far around chess being far more luck-based than most think.

Why don't you take a minute to actually type out your final stance?