Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

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.

I've kept clear of the Queen's Indian. At first it was because I believed people who were saying that the QID was easier to play, for both sides, than the Nimzo. I tended to find that on average I was doing well against the Nimzo and I was exploring the Reshevsky and also normal main lines. I eventually decided to stick with the delayed Samisch approach. In the past two years I've considered changing to the QID as white but that involves a lot of difficulties. Firstly, I would now think that QID is more difficult and harder to play well by white than the Nimzo, in which white's best approach is usually a direct, central and kingside attack. Also 3. Nf3 incites more people to play the Modern Benoni, which was fine while I actively played that as black but now I'm scared of it again. I don't know the modern theory for it. So it's "persevere with the Nimzo" and I've been trying out 4. f3 but have discovered that 4. f3 is being hyped and probably isn't half as good as it's hyped to be. I'm looking forward to a current game finishing, where I played 4. f3, so I can analyse it with computer aid to determine where to go from here.

In general, I prefer to cut down the element of luck as much as I can, when playing the white pieces; and to enhance it with black: hence I've been playing the O'Kelly Sicilian for 20 years, where, occasionally, you meet someone who isn't distracted by the hype over not playing 3. d4 and plays it, knowing how to play positionally as white, with no fast attacks. But in general, a high degree of chaos and luck seems more acceptable with the black pieces than with white. That's a different kind of luck, although in general, luck involves playing a line that is difficult and, by chance, your opponent hasn't studied it.

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"!

who debates that?  Didn't Fischer himself literally say Chess is all memory and theory prep?  In your opinion someone forgetting his line means you got lucky, but thats just your opinion.    Because thats on the person and not the game.  Again,   I don't understand the need to even debate this.  

   The absolute fact is that chess does not have luck built into the game.  For example its not a game where you are rolling the dice or playing poker with a flop or dealt random cares,  or pulling a casino slot handle.   

1800 on lichess lmao.    I know people 1900 on lichess that are 1800 blitz fide rating.    I think maybe part of the reason lichess inflates the initial ratings is to ensure competitive matches up at the beginner level.  Since that clearly doesn't happen on chess.com.  But once you get to intermediate and expert its not much different.

who debates that?  Didn't Fischer himself literally say Chess is all memory and theory prep?  In your opinion someone forgetting his line means you got lucky, but thats just your opinion.  It isn't luck that my opinions are often correct. It might help you if you didn't misrepresent my opinion, since that doesn't just fool other people but it also fools yourself.

Because thats on the person and not the game.  Again,   I don't understand the need to even debate this.  I still feel people either need an excuse for losing or an excuse to not take chess seriously as a sport.   The absolute fact is that chess does not have luck built into the game. Your absolute fact isn't everybody's!

For example its not a game where you are rolling the dice or playing poker with a flop or dealt random cares,  or pulling a casino slot handle.   In those games mental or physical skill cannot  100%  predetermine the results of those actions out of human control.  I can't even believe I'm having this conversation and it absolutely speaks alterior motives.  You are literally coming up with an excuse not to respect the sport which encourages disrespect.  I actually find it apalling. Oh what a pity. What about all the others who are agreeing with me and with whom I'm agreeing?

  

3.  I personally can't stand this community.  Its full of alt accounts and rating manipulators.  

You like everyone to leave the sport altogether,  

You like everyone to leave the sport altogether,  Thats why you constantly make demeaning marks about low rated players and blitz.   You know,  the majority of worldwide chess community>   My theory is,  because people like you want to feel like you are of superior intelligence for playing a game most of society "can't".   But you are lying to yourself buddy.  lmao

Haven't read much of the thread.

Of course there's luck in chess. In a Swiss system tournament, you have little control over which opponent you get paired against, or whether you have White or Black against your most dangerous opponents. These things are determined by the number of players entering the tournament, and by the distribution of their ratings and early-round results... random factors that you have no control over.

Luck, in other words.