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.
I pretty much agree.
Not a big surprise that you agree with the guy that can't add to 100.
As I said before, the only luck in chess is when your opponent's skill fails. All you need to do to prove me wrong is cite an example of "luck" that isn't merely a mistake, incompetence, lack of preparation, etc. on the opponent's part. For example: "mouseslip = luck" is just another way of saying "mouse skill failure." 
As I said before, the only luck in chess is when your opponent's skill fails. All you need to do to prove me wrong is cite an example of "luck" that isn't merely a mistake, incompetence, lack of preparation, etc. on the opponent's part. For example: "mouseslip = luck" is just another way of saying "mouse skill failure."
or luck. 
My opponent yesterday felt very lucky. He outrated me 400 but I outplayed him. In the last hour things started slipping. My attack wasnt good coordinated, pieces and pawns obstructed eachother and I did not make a pawnpush I should have done. I had a beckrankissue and he used thet to win a pawn. For three hours he felt losing, and his happiness radiated when he won., He said it was luck. I was good for 3 hours and not good the last 30 minutes.
you might have looked at the post just before yours ?
You mean the post describing a scenario in which a move that "looks good" turns out to be mate after the fact unbeknownst to the player who played it? Once again, it's not exactly "luck" when your opponent plays so incompetently that "good looking" moves can lead to mate in one.
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.
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.
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.
Luck: success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.
Heuristic: Enabling a person to discover or learn something for themselves.
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.
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.
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.
Luck: success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.
Heuristic: Enabling a person to discover or learn something for themselves.
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts
its from the dictionary moron
suppose you played a move because you liked how it looked and it turned out to be checkmate but you had no idea it was checkmate.
what exactly is that ? stupidity ?
"I'm saying that just because you can get lucky because of how your opponent moves... luck does not determine the outcome of a game. because your opponent is still making a choice. so you can be lucky or unlucky... thats fine. but you yourself are not a game of chess. in order for the game to be determine by luck a move would have to be made that was out of BOTH players control. "
reposting
how is this so complicated?
If words are defined by consensus and luck is a word then the consensus as of today is defined in the dictionary. Luck: success or failure apparently brought by CHANCE rather than through one's own ACTIONS. If a move is made in the game of chess then a player has made a CHOICE and taken the ACTION of moving their piece. If a CHOICE is made to determine an outcome then CHANCE has not determined the outcome. If a player has made a CHOICE and taken the ACTION of moving their piece then the piece was not moved by luck or fate or any other bullshit regardless of the outcome. if an opponent has made a move then it was their CHOICE to do so. if the game of chess includes at least TWO PLAYERS and both players DECIDE which pieces to move then nothing is determined by luck except the selection of the black or white pieces.
the level of control you have over the outcome of the game has quite literally nothing to do with luck. it is a measure of your aptitude and experience with the game. nothing is determined by chance. if your opponent blunders you can defiantly consider YOURSELF lucky... because that was out of your control. but YOU ARE NOT A GAME OF CHESS. your are part of a whole. a game with rules. and two players.
by your logic any single move that your opponent makes that is not 100% optimal is good luck for you. and any move you make that is not optimal is bad luck for you, and the game of chess is determined by (throwing out some more bullshit numbers) about 90% luck. for both players. does this sound reasonable? is this really the question we are addressing here?
Your own definition says that Luck and Chance are the same thing.
your ignoring the rest of the argument as usual. and its the dictionaries definition. if anyone is guilty of using their own definitions for things its undoubtedly you richard.
You should probably read things before you quote them.
you should probably eat a bowl of moldy pubes
You mean like you do?
its hardly worth pointing out to you that just because chance is in the definition of luck it does not at all make them the same thing.
Your definition is pretty clear that luck derives from chance.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, comparing chess with other "sports". I see. You don't understand chess that well.
Chess is like mathematics when dealing with problems that have been solved with certainty. Those which aren't, have instead a degree of probability. A good player has a good grasp of which are these odds, and chooses to play within his reach or to go beyond it. No luck involved.
The term "luck", instead, is often used by players who aren't aware of these facts. For them, every move has an amount of gambling, as they aren't aware or can't evaluate the chances for success. That said, their approach to chess doesn't define the game itself.
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.
I pretty much agree.
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?
He says that Chess is 13% luck. Can't you read?