Is chess a game of logic?

Define Logic.

The Chinese logical philosopher Gongsun Long (ca. 325–250 BC) proposed the paradox "One and one cannot become two, since neither becomes two."

Hmm so alpha-beta pruning would play the role of a guy with a Jason mask and chainsaw? 

Initial reactions:

1. "logos", the arrangement of words in different combinations to see what different senses they make... was invented in Greece, yes?

2. my research on chess shows that in processing the visual information of chess positions and chess games, there is some degree of thinking through it with words, but also other forms of non-verbal, spatial intelligence come into play.

that is not a paradox.

There is only a little luck in chess. Usually if an opponet plays a move not expected--it is a bad move.

Power has luck in the short run but not in the long run.  Same for chess but less luck in the short run and the long run.

So every game then?

 I know what it means.

You can use both intuition and logic in a game of chess. Having one doesn't exclude the other.

I wasn't posting for your benefit.

See post #9.

There is very little luck at slow OTB speeds.  Plenty of luck at Game in 3/0, or even Game in 3/5.

Chess is highly specific skill set, that can (and is) being programmed.  But probably without "long run solution," (whatever that might mean).

As per @Waffle and @Ponz, yes, it's partly logical, and all those other qualities mentioned above.

But it still a highly specific skill set.

It has side benefits for math, logic, (or whatever). These qualities provide lots of material for a good TED Talk.  But not much more.

And Chess is still "part Art, part Science, and part Sport," too. 

Or at least that what some of the GM's (Gulko) and their Psychology Professor (USCF A Class) Co-authors assert (page #18, I believe)--

http://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Grandmaster-Strategy-Psychology-Everyman/dp/1857446682/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370879764&sr=1-1&keywords=gulko+chess

Couldn't have said it better!
Chess is 100% about knowledge and logic!

Computers have both.  In that they have a huge openning database (lets call it knowledge) and extremely accurate calculating skills (logic if you will)

There is no thing as luck in chess.  If not try beating Houdini and see if you are lucky!

People comparing computers and human players... If human players could calculate millions of moves per second, then we would barely need to know how to play the game. 

Theoretically it is possible to win against houdini by playing random moves, so yes, luck could be a factor. Or a very complex position, and merely guessing that a certain candidate move is the best. Or opponents who blunder, also luck.

There is some luck in chess. You might be lucky and catch your opponent on an off day. Or your opponent may play into an opeing you know very well.  Those are just two examples.

Sorry. My mistake.

Yer not from 'round these parts, are yer boy?

Logic is not intuition. Intuition is not logic.  But one can on occassion be evoked serendipitously by applying the other.

As well to ask if war is a game of logic. Certainly in war there is logic to strategy and tactics that must be attended to. But in war, you never have all the facts at your disposal and must deal with the chaos and the unpredictable and the random factors of "the fog of war." Chess began as a war game and still includes "the fog of war" because its possibilities exceed our logical abilities. That is why the game is still full of surprises, and if it were not, I wouldn't like it. Perhaps computers can play the game as a game of pure logic and even, as some predict, someday logically "solve" chess. But human beings, playing over the board, must deal with the will of their opponent, their own fatigue, even fear. Because in our limitation we cannot trust the perfection of our logic, we are subject to the hesitations of doubt. In a great game of chess, there is elation and joy as well as logic, and sometimes, disappointment.

Great summary.  Thank you, @Ricardo_M.

The question posed by the OP ("Is chess a game of logic?") is in some sense an interesting one, but it's essentially the same as asking "What is chess?" And every player has said at one time or another that it's art, or logic, or merely a game, etc. In other words, nobody's entirely sure exactly how to classify it.
On the other hand, the question is essentially irrelevant from a practical standpoint. Chess is chess, and as long as people enjoy playing it, what does it really matter what arbitary classification it falls under? Why do people tend to assume that you can always neatly divide certain objects as being entirely in one class or another, anyway?

Also, to those saying there's no luck in chess: completely untrue. If this wasn't the case, then no one would ever be fortunate enough to come back from a losing position after their opponent blundered. Or be fortunate enough to play into an opening position that's familiar to them, but not their opponent.

lamdeafzed, well said!