Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

If by "dodging" you mean I like to be precise, then yes.

Define the good decision, and the bad outcome.

P.S. I am not the one that has prolonged this discussion.  

Ergo, "functional" luck.  Except...not really.

Years ago, when programming Rybka, the team lead said after they make a change, they play many test games (100s or 1000s) and if the net performance was positive, then they kept the change. Implicitly this means changes didn't make the program play better in every situation.

A good decision is, for example, choosing something that works 999 times out of 1000. A bad outcome is the evaluation changing from draw to loss, or from win to draw or loss.

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

So your premise that because developers that program engines that play better than any human being can play should *not* be forced to use trial and error to advance their software?  What's your alternative?

You are not defining an example.  Good decision = singular choice.  Bad outcome = the result of more than a single choice.  Reconcile if you'd like an answer.

I'm not impressed with anyone who has posted many times here.

In your case you seem to prefer sniping at other people's propositions while not making any of your own. For example in our discussion you're asking me to define good decisions and bad outcomes when instead you could say something like:  "dying on the way to buy groceries is colloquially unlucky, but the definition of luck I'm using is ______"

...because I did that years ago.  Welcome to the discussion.  I'm not going to lay out everything I have ever said here (and on other threads) because you showed up .  Nor do I care if you are impressed.

Your lightning argument is old hat.  Sorry.  Moving on...and might I suggest that if your arguments require lightning strikes and heart attacks to stand up, you should do the same.

No, I'm not interested in engine development. I'm saying, for example:

1) The great majority of positions are played with heuristics.
2) Decisions that result good outcomes in the large majority of cases are good decisions.
3) Some good decisions can result in a bad outcomes.
4) A definition of luck or randomness that excludes events in #3 is overly technical / argumentative.

As for reconciliation, a single move can result in an evaluation change (e.g. draw to loss) so I don't understand your request.

This is the 2nd time I'm telling you the argument has nothing to do with lightening, and I'd rather you address the logic, not the packaging (you did the same by getting sidetracked with engine development).

You're not interested in repeating yourself, and I'm not interested in reading 180 pages for a handful of good comments.

I will say that your nature comes across as argumentative when you'll post here for months while declining to re-make any of your quality past arguments. It also comes across as contradictory when you claim inconvenience while simultaneously investing so much time. I don't mind if you like arguing for its own sake, but again it'd be nice if you were upfront about it.

It's not hard to understand...a single gunshot wound *may* kill you, but that doesn't mean I want to accept your argument that gunshots always kill people.  Ergo, I want a specific example, and I will answer where skill and/or luck is involved as I see it.  Who's dodging again?

Point #2 is flawed.  Whether a move is good decision or not is entirely relative.  "Knights on the rim are grim" is no way to play chess in the moment.  Play the position.  It doesn't matter one iota if move A is played 99 times out of 100 if the position calls for move B.  

Point #4 does not follow.  Even if you allow for #2 and #3.

I agree that basic rules of thumb are not a good way to play chess, however both top humans and top engines use heuristics to play.

I also agree #2 is not precise in the sense that there are a few back doors, such as a no-true-scottsman-like objection... however given my real world example of Rybka's development, I believe I've given you a sufficiently precise argument i.e. chess is largely played via a series of educated guesses. I believe you're intelligent enough to understand my argument, but if you're only interested in sniping at it from a distance while asking me to read 180 pages then there's nothing left for us to talk about.

I'm not investing much time.  I'm retired, so your mileage may vary.  It's not contradictory to invest time without wanting to repeat yourself, by the way.  It's a natural instinct.

Suit yourself.  I understand your PoV, but from my PoV you're just a newbie account asking for a rehash of the entire thread.

If the idea is that your past arguments were of such quality that they'd end the debate, then it's time-saving to reference (or repost) them.

You like to ask for more detail a lot, so let me ask you about your position:  give an example of a mundane random or lucky event (i.e. not Brownian motion, something an every day person could relate to).

I have also done that...more than once.

That's fair.

For myself, it's aggravating that so many pages lead nowhere. The propositions for each side (so to speak) are not well defined. It's endless rabbit holes of bad analogies and surface level critiques.

For example, my 4 point list made a few posts back is my position. Meanwhile I have no idea about your position (or optimissed, or any one else's).

If the idea is to save time then you'd continue to do it

Lol.  Brownian motion is one of the best examples of randomness.

Lucky event:  field goal kicker shanks his kick wide right, but a gust of wind in the opposite direction to the wind direction when the kick ensued pushed it left it hits the goalpost and bounces inward.

There's lots of luck to be had in day to day life.  The narrowed laws of the pocket universe that is a game of chess is another story.

Here's a return question (two actually but they are directly related):

Does chess require a physical board or pieces?

Does a chess game without physical manifestation require a digital/online representation?

That's imprecise.  If my goal were to convince you personally, then it would be time saving for me to do this.  If that is not my goal, then it's arguably a waste of time to interact with any single poster past the level of addressing new material.