Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

That makes sense to me. Couldn't the same thing said of math also be said of chess? Isn't chess a big math problem? So if it's solveable (like a 6 piece endgame) then there really isn't any luck. But humans DOING chess is where the luck comes in. Which leads to the next question, how much luck is in computers playing chess?

Imagine the game of pachisi was solved, then tossing the dice or seashells would remain a random factor, whereas chess being solved would mean luck needed play no role if players can play from the initial position using the tablebase. 

My question for you is which game brings out the impact of luck in all human endeavour clearer, chess or pachisi?

There is no luck in tic-tac-toe with its 3x3 design and uniform pieces, but there is luck in chess with its 8x8 design and different pieces, because any game on these grounds goes beyond our limits.

But pachisi is obviously more about luck than chess. Or is it?

It may be in pachisi in the long run luck levels out and the better players win. Or it may be so simple to play that usually goodness levels out and only the luckier players can win. 

Chess has no dice or shells to toss (cards or lots to draw or coins to flip). But the complexity of structures and their capacities regularly makes it impossible for players of any strength to judge whether a continuation is sufficient or not. Even in this game fairer than life we have to use heuristics and can only try our luck. To be brought to this conclusion in chess, innocent of introducing any form of random generators, lets us smile. 

But, to return to the math and chess comparison, does chess itself contain luck? It doesn't matter if the tablebase is doable for us, the notion of the game being either a draw or a win and we just do not know it is enough to say chess as such contains no luck. Just if the tablebase would show a draw or a win after all, that seems a matter of luck (if we have a preference). 

Chess is conceived life-like, to be navigated by heuristics. Worse players will place worse bets, but even the best players will have to place bets and bets to feed memory with curiosity. Like in, I bet you would like to find out about this line, two!

I know he has said that. I'm sorry to have to bring this up but his position regarding the coin toss was an anomaly, due to his stance and non-realistic definition regarding  luck.

If you think that makes your positions different, you would be mistaken. Just disregard the coin toss. Your pretence is rhetoric only.

In real life, referring to someone, to one's peers, as devious and rather stupid would convey so much more efficiently that which one could only struggle to convey by playing that person's rather sordid game.

Therefore, it's only natural that one of us should have misunderstood Coolout. Where is he, by the way?

I think the two of you are extremely similar though. That isn't an implication about anything other than your similarity. It can be genuinely difficult to tell the difference. Different variations of similar tactics. 

It's "far different" from your belief about the wind. It does not tell us that C's and your opinion of luck in chess differ from one another's and, indeed, they don't differ. I have a memory and you don't always stay on board with whichever story you're supposed to be running with at any given time.

Now stop trying to out-argue me even after you just lost the argument. It's irritating.

Not being to perceive, understand or interpret an outcome is not the same as that outcome being random.

I didn't say the outcome is random, I said there's some randomness involved, which there is. Even when engines play, they play multiple games to determine which engine is better. This is because chess is a game of making educated guesses.

...and educated guesses = skill-based decisions.  Not random luck.  Just because you cannot calculate out 30 moves does not mean anything that happens 30 moves down the road in a chess game is ergo luck.

Why go to all the trouble of misrepresenting yours and Coolout's attitude to luck in chess, when it was quite an innocent comment, regarding an obvious similarity, which many others will have picked up on? There can only be three possible motives. One is to cause confusion. One is to establish that you genuinely have different opinions, although that would seem a bit far fetched. Who would be convinced?

The final one is that you just like arguing for argument's sake and would argue that black's white if you thought you could get away with it. Same as Mr C, actually. Coincidentally, you both of you state you're on a mission to re-educate people who think wrongly and who make shameful posts. He's learning to express himself better in English and I think he copies people's styles. I've noticed him using yours almost word for word. Must make you feel good. Wish people would pretend to be like me. Think of how it would help my ego-problems!

Anyhow, I only mentioned all that because you really took me by surprise in denying a similarity regarding your beliefs in the absence of luck from chess.

I feel like you're treating it as an all or nothing preposition. Chess is not a game of pure chance, of course. But it is also not a game where players are in complete control.

Tic-tac-toe, for example, is a game where a reasonably intelligent human player is in complete control of the outcome.

Tic-tac-toe is another game of perfect information, without the minimum luck possible for a game design.  The *only* between Chess and Tic-tac-toe in this context is that human beings cannot grasp how to force a win or draw in Chess.

Yes, because humans can't make use of the perfect information.

Let me know whether you agree with the following:

When "good decisions" (which are logical decisions based on all the information available) sometimes lead to bad outcomes, the process is functionally random.

"Good decisions" in chess sometimes lead to bad outcomes.

Therefore chess has some randomness.

I commented on that a few posts earlier. B&W or all or nothing thinking.

I disagree.  It's not "functionally" random, and it's not random.  Admitting that your position is only calling chess "functionally" random is a step in the right direction, though.

Don't make me prove to you that .999 repeating decimal = 1 .

I need to eat to stay alive, so I go to the store to purchase food. On the way I'm struck by lightening and as a result I don't stay alive.

It's not random in the sense that non-quantum laws of physics are predictable, but when good decisions result in bad outcomes we call that randomness or luck.

If you're hiding behind some level of philosophical determinism it'd be nice to be upfront about it.

The lightning argument was about 100 pages ago.

There's no lightning in the logical construct of a chess game, nor anything remotely like it.

The lightening isn't an important part of the logic chain. I'd rather you address the point I'm making about good decisions resulting in bad outcomes, which happens all the time in day to day life.

I don't need to, because this discussion is about the game of chess, not day to day life.