Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Luck in chess has been demonstrated by many people in this thread in a convincing manner, now it's just about converting it into a practical version that anyone would understand. That might be impossible.

There's no (1) free speech, (2) government intervention, or (3) institutionalized fascism on a free market website like Chess.com.

A single determination by a player of the smallest useful unit possible...within the constraints of chess, the determination of one move.

"Are we to judge whether every move has a good or bad outcome separately from the result of the entire game?"

Now we're making progress.  If you cannot prove luck in a single move's determination, you cannot posit luck in a series of moves, either.  I said this (in so many words) many dozens of pages ago.

Luck has been demonstrated in a single move time and time again on this thread. However, now that this discussion's effectively over, I suppose you're mulling over the remnants and wondering if you went wrong due to bad luck or lack of skill.

Don't worry, it was bad luck, that you tried to continue Coolout's brave but ultimately ineffectual crusade, in order to try to get inside his mind, to work out what makes him tick. The argument is no different, whoever tries to make it but even so, it's maybe possible to get some insights, by working through it from the defeated combatant's p.o.v.

Almost the last thing he said to me was that he no longer thinks chess is a sport. He'd already accepted that those arguing for luck in chess are probably right. It takes some courage to reverse an opinion and he had that.

     An interesting conception; by divorcing every 1/2 move from any eventual (un)fortunate outcome the existence of luck can be discounted, as there is an element of benefit or loss attached to every definition of luck. Although I agree with the idea that all the moves made are each player's own doing, I have doubts as to this method of demonstrating that on two points.

     It can be reasonably argued that every gross blunder is a stroke of luck for the other player, as that player's own efforts and abilities bear no relation to the good fortune they receive in the form of a favorable position.

     Every game that does not end in checkmate is therefore a lucky win as the resignation/time forfeit/ arbiter's decision is unrelated to the winning player's actions and falls upon them like manna from heaven.

     An interesting conception; by divorcing every 1/2 move from any eventual (un)fortunate outcome the existence of luck can be discounted, as there is an element of benefit or loss attached to every definition of luck. Although I agree with the idea that all the moves made are each player's own doing, I have doubts as to this method of demonstrating that on two points.

     It can be reasonably argued that every gross blunder is a stroke of luck for the other player, as that player's own efforts and abilities bear no relation to the good fortune they receive in the form of a favorable position.

     Every game that does not end in checkmate is therefore a lucky win as the resignation/time forfeit/ arbiter's decision is unrelated to the winning player's actions and falls upon them like manna from heaven.

I see where this argument is coming from, but I see some problems with it. Chess is a skill vs skill game, where a blunder or lack of skill needs to end up with a bad result. This is how a skill based game is supposed to work. It's only a blunder if you follow up by playing a better move; therefore its not a gift but you outplaying the opponent fairly. Also, if a blunder is seen as luck, any imperfect move has to be seen as luck as well.

Gotta entertain both sides sometimes I guess

the thing is that media and companies like twitter could have a large amount of control over its users.

Quite a while ago it was determined that there is luck in chess. I agree it's pretty convincing. I suggested that we move on to determining how much luck there is, since the question of whether or not it exists has been answered pretty well. 

More than a lot of people might think, perhaps. But luck respects all levels of ability and hides itself well. Hence this conversation.

     In actuality we have been doing that all along. Some say that getting a winning position from an opponent's blunder is a lucky break. Some say that the only luck in chess is getting to be white. Some say that an element of chance exists in every move as we cannot calculate all possibilities to 100% certainty. I remember you saying that when a player can't figure out which move out of a few likely choices is best, a random choice must be made and if it is good that is luck. Some when a solid move turns out to be much stronger than the player thought a few moves down the line, that's unearned good fortune. I say that computer glitches online or heart attacks at the board are just about the only bits of sheer luck in chess. Some say mouse-slips or moving pieces to the wrong square that turn out to be great moves are lucky.

     I imagine that getting agreement on just which things are luck, and what% of the game that constitutes would be a daunting task.

Your second paragraph shows that you are in the subjective luck/perception camp.  Thus our impasse.  Chess is played by two entities, arguing that when one makes a choice there's a magical transformation en route and the the other receives random lucky outcomes on the receiving end is not an argument I will ever accept.

A blunder is objectively a blunder, whether taken advantage of or not.  No follow up required.

     The second paragraph would only apply if every 1/2 move were separated from the rest of the game for purposes of evaluating results. The person returning from the restroom to find a favorable position not of their own making is no less lucky than a person looking at the pairings sheet and finding they will have the white pieces. Nothing magical about that; and remember my position is that bad moves are the player's own doing. Taking the game as a whole, there will be plenty of mistakes on both sides and saying this move was 11% lucky for the other player, that move is 8% lucky for the player that made it, and so on would be ridiculous. My problem is with making every 1/2 move it's own discrete action needing evaluation.

     And of course luck is subjective. Should a desperately hungry man step on a bag containing a half-eaten cheeseburger he will be elated; should I do so I'd toss it in a trash bin.

I say between 5 and 10 percent. 

Ah. Thanks. Is that how many of the move choices depend on luck or how much the result depends on luck? I say the worse we can play the more of our moves depend on luck, but the better we play, the more decisive is luck.

What is the other 90-95%?

I say it is love, memory, openess, patience, curiosity, laughter, exchange, real virtuality, quickness and death.

True but it is no use if you dont outplay your opponent. Why nit pick an irrelevant sentence to the point that was made?