Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

ben hogan said, "the more i practice, the luckier i get".

Anyone who doesn't think there's luck in chess is just wrong.

Sometimes you hang mate in 1 and your opponent doesn't see it. Who knows, maybe at that particular moment your opponent just wasn't paying very close attention. Sometimes they would see it, sometimes they wouldn't. You have absolutely NO CONTROL over whether or not your opponent sees it, so essentially it becomes a roll of the dice, and if your opponent doesn't see it, you're not good, you're just lucky.

Ah, but you say that is only at lower ratings. Wrong. Bronstein was dead lost against Petrosian in the 1956 Candidate's when Petrosian inexplicably hung his queen. 999 times out of 1000 that never would've happened, but Petrosian had a brain-fart, pulled a Botez Gambit, and resigned. Bronstein was lucky, pure and simple. He was outplayed and he was dead to rights, but he won because Petrosian did something that even most players rated 1000 points lower than him wouldn't do.

Is there a lot of luck in chess? No. Is there no luck in chess? Don't be ridiculous.

The definition of luck is random chance that comes out in your favor. You have no control over whether or not your opponent sees a blunder or makes a blunder. It's a dice roll. It's the definition of luck.

If there were no luck in chess, then the better player would always win.

But your opponent has that control and he/she is a part of the game ... 

Also its true that better player always wins only the word "better" isn't stable in time...

Only thing on what should depends who will win are the thoughts and skill of you and your player... if you would say that thoughts of your opponent are random then there is a luck in chess and yeah they kinda are but thats a luck only from your point of view from the view of your opponent he/she just made a mistake and there is no luck or unluck in it...
Chess are unic not because there isn't litteraly any luck but because that luck there is only onesided... nothing what would any of both players cant affect... no dice rolls etc..

There's luck in chess because things outside your control can happen, which affect your concentration. But the better you are as a player, then the better your concentration and such things are less likely to affect it. If you're tired then it's harder to maintain concentration and "luck|" will play a bigger part.

You have three chess books on the table and before an important match you randomly pick up one and start reading it and you concentrate on a particular variation and learn it by heart in 30 or 40 minutes or whatever. Your opponent by chance plays that variation and due only to having read the book, you know that he's blundered and there's a difficult to spot continuation which wins for you. That's happened to me. Exactly that. I won a lot of tournaments.

Mystery of the missing post, which #187 was in answer to.

Me win - wisdom

He wins - luck

---

That's how I see it.

Adding luck to the game of chess, disappears as you  and your opponents rating goes up, you can take that to the bank!!!!!

It's not really luck, it's more about good calculation. Probably luck in chess is more about lucky not to mouseslip, other than that luck is just based on you and your opponents thought process.

What I all said was an opinion

No-one, surely, can argue that such a scenario doesn't involve luck.

I would say that chess and every game involving more than one player has "luck" in that you can get lucky and your opponent can make a bad move. What chess doesn't have is chance or randomness. (random outcomes from draw of the card, dice roll, a computer). Unlike a game of chance, the outcome of a chess game is completely dependent on the moves the players make. In poker a bad player can beat a much better player if they simply get a better hand because of chance.

But yes you can still get "lucky" In  game I played recently I got lucky because my opponent hung their queen.

I studied 50 GM games that followed a move order nuance against the Queen's Indian Defense as preparation for one specific opponent. I wanted to prevent 7...Ne4, so delayed castling by first securing e4. Most of these games were long battles, but there was an inspirational miniature that could guide me if my opponent made one of six possible seventh moves. He played it.

That was lucky. But preparation played a big impact.

in chess there is no such thing as luck its only you make a good move or you make bad move and that shapes the game the people who said you were lucky were likely angry

Of course there is such thing as luck in chess.

The formal definition of luck is "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.

 Therefore, if you are randomly making moves, well if its a bad move then rip. If it is a good move then it is lucky.

Another factor in is if you are lower on time, or a opening move it far too complicated to calculate in a reasonable amount of time, in these situations you have to make moves quickly. If you can't calculate fast enough it is completely up to chance and therefore luck if you will make a good move.

Another factor is the fact that even if you do make a "bad" move, or even a outright blunder, you can get lucky and your opponent may of missed it.

Even unlucky exists, Wi-Fi goes out/ server issues it and forfeits your game.

 Misclicking and especially true on Lichess, the opponent doesn't let you take back your move even if it is obvious you misclicked.

Playing a rated game and being paired with a smurf who is happy to see you.

These are just some on the spot examples.

The key factor is the intention of the move, was the intention brought about by means that were intended, was the move planned out and correctly seen through before it was played and was it successful in doing what you thought it would.

Some people don't listen to correct arguments and they think they know better. Again, they will be making their own luck. They may prosper, despite their stupidity.

Well by definition, if you made a major mistake, then the opposition didn't see the move you got lucky. With that being said, I would think that depends completely on the position. The skill comes from finding complicated moves to win a game, this is certainly misleading because sometimes the most simple move is the most overlooked and therefore the hardest to find.

 So with that being said, if your blunder was obvious then yes the win was likely lucky, and he likely got very lucky himself if he blundered two times and it was obvious. If it wasn't obvious, or strong engine moves were needed in reply, then it is purely because of your opponent's lack of skill and/or not understanding of tactics and therefore not because of luck.

If this is in reply to me this is nonsensical, and doesn't contribute as a retort. 
 Define what it means to "make their own luck", because if it is what I think it means then that doesn't make sense. On that same note you would have to define a "correct" argument. That pair of words is very strange.

I had just won a tough game with a very worthy opponent and felt quite proud of my accomplishment, only to have another player show me where my opponent missed a move that would have stopped my winning game, did that take the wind out of my sails, because the win alone is not the important part but but how you "got it"!