I will put it this way: if you think someone who beats you is just lucky, you will never improve.
I willl quote my earlier post:
I have already been accused before that by talking about luck I try to avoid responsibility for not playing good and not training hard enough. On the contrary! It's obvious that by improving our play via hard training, concentration etc. we decrease the probablity of our mistakes and improve our chances to win. But those remain just chances...
The way I see it, if you have a game where the players play random but legal moves, the result will be determined by 100% chance. This is akin to a game between two absolute novices. As players get more experienced and skillful, the degree of chance obviously decreases, but unless both players get complete knowledge of all possible outcomes - which not even a computer can manage - then I don't see how the amount of chance in the game can ever be completely removed.
What you are calling "chance" here is actually a gap in knowledge.
Yes, and if you have a gap in knowledge then you must depend on luck.
Lol. That is a bit of circular reasoning ...
LOL, you don't understand what circular reasoning is.
Obviously, I understand it better than you. You have asserted your conclusion. When you lose to Hikaru 100 out of 100 games, it is because he is lucky?
No that's because of skill difference and nobody ever tried to deny it. Now tell me when Magnus loses one game is it because he is less skilled?