Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

I think this description can be compared to chess. Why is chess unlike mathematics in this sense?

I understand what you guys are saying and I am agreeing with you all. However, I think the actual game of chess has no luck.

If chess is ever solved, then there would be no luck in chess. If you believe that chess is solvable, then you must also believe there is no luck in chess (aside from the human element because human's are incapable of memorizing that far).

So you do agree that chess can be drawn always with perfect play?

Your math example only works if you *completely* randomly choose the number (in which case you no longer "doing math"), not if you make your best educated guess at the correct method/answer.  The latter is an application of skill on a spectrum from perfect skill (doesn't exist for humans) to zero skill (also doesn't exist for humans), not luck rushing in to fill the gap. 

Luck is external. 

Put up as many concrete examples as you want ...a dozen, a hundred, it doesn't matter, the ones with luck involved will all be external to the humans/entities in question.

Yes, he does, and he doesn't see that it belies his position on luck in chess .

I asked you regarding the first example if it was a lucky incident or not, you chose not to reply. The reason we can only guess.

You don't even understand when you've failed to make your points...sad, really.

Sorry I thought it was obvious that I agreed it was a lucky incident only due to human imperfection. Not because math involves luck.

If you believe that chess can be ALWAYS drawn with perfect play, then you must also believe there is no luck element in the game of chess (outside of human imperfection). This is why btickler thinks it belittles your position. 

"Your math example only works if you *completely* randomly choose the number"

This logic doesn't hold any water. If we break this down more, you'll understand why.

First of all, you can straight up miscalculate a math exercise and still get it right. That would make it completely random actually. Same can happen in chess.

Secondly, a 5 year old who just learned to count addition has some knowledge, therefore he cannot be lucky if he guestimates a correct answer to an advanced addition exercise (say 19 000 + 20 000). Edit. Admittedly bad example but you get the point. A little skill can exist in the process but a 100% result is not realistic by this level of skill, completely compareable to guessing.

I think this goes back to what Dmfed said. Step one of baking an apple pie is creating the universe. For all practical purposes, chess has some luck in it, because humans play it. I agree chess, like math, isn't something that has luck built into it, but when people do math, or do chess, there is luck spilling out all over the place. 

Because of what luck is. I played a game about a week ago, and I remember it because of this one move. It was about the 4th game, and my opponent was just stuck. Nowhere good to move. And so made a move that was basically a resigning move, giving up the queen, just wanting it to be over. And no, it was not a sacrifice to gain a position or other advantage. Just giving up. 

But the more I looked at it the more I realized what a good move it was. My opponent was just wanting to start a new game and looked slightly irritated I was taking my time. We ended up drawing. I would call that move good luck. (bad luck for me) because it's not a move that would ever normally arise. It was one of those moves only someone rated 1000 points above you makes. 

First example:  "miscalculating" would obviously *not* be completely random, by the very definition of random I just posted.  

Second example:   If you are trying to argue that there's a non-zero chance that choosing chess moves at random can have a toddler beat Carlsen ala monkeys recreating Shakespeare randomly, then yes, there's always an infinitesimal chance of random events turning out in some fantastical way. 

Note the word "recreating" though.  I didn't say monkeys could "write" Shakespeare, because they would not actually be engaged in play writing.  The same way that your toddler in this example is not really "doing addition" (although answering 39,000 is not nearly as incredible as you would think, given that the "thousands" aspect is a gimme for the toddler), and the same way that completely randomly choosing chess moves is not "playing chess".   

"First example:  "miscalculating" would obviously *not* be completely random, by the very definition of random I just posted."

Miscalculation resulting in the correct result is skill rather than luck, is that your statement?

Flying a Spitfire requires a good deal of demonstrable skill.  Handing the joystick to a non-flyer for 30 seconds seconds flying in a straight line and saying "Look, you're flying!" doesn't change that.  Bad example, like saying that Grand Prix racers don't employ skill once they have stopped consciously thinking about taking the corners of each lap.

But hey, it allowed you to slip in yet another anecdote ...so mission accomplished.

Yes.  It's a skill spectrum result.  Lack of skill, skill.  Call it what you like.  You (and others) are not getting this because there's no good word or phrase that means "showing a lower amount of skill in this application".  Lack of skill does not mean zero skill.  Lack of skill does not mean luck, either.  Luck is not some gaseous matter that rushes to fill a vacuum.

I would apply that first sentence to yourself. 

I'll be back later to refute all the follow ups from various posters .

Response to statement 1:  Not....the math tests I took, you had to show exactly how you got your answer, or no credit. You shouldn't get any credit on a math test for guessing correctly.

Response to statement 2:  This is making me reconsider my opinion on whether there is luck in chess. (This has no doubt happened to all of us at one time or another)

That could be, but the rest of life still gives you credit if you get lucky and guess correctly. A stock pick, a decision to buy that questionable house, taking 4th street to get to the store instead of Maple. (later finding out a fatality happened on Maple), the errant tee shot that hits an OB marker and bounces back into play.  Pretty much all of life, and chess too, you get credit for being lucky. 

Based on Kotshmot's rather basic example, I no longer have the opinion that there is no luck in chess. Now, I  just don't know.  

"What if you have no idea to calculate a particular chess position so you have to take a guess, and you land the best move according to stockfish?"  (This has no doubt happened to all of us, and seems like luck to me)