Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Yes there is such thing as luck in chess. If you see the best move then yes. If you are too blind to see the best move, then blame your luck.

"Seeing the best move" or not is the very definition of skill (or lack thereof), not luck. Being "too blind" = lack of skill. Any decision made that has an element of skill in terms of game design is a skill-based endeavor, and a lack of skill or an element of uncertainty due to lack of knowledge is not luck. Uncertain outcomes do not just translate to "luck". Making guesses and getting an uncertain outcome from one of both players' decisions is an expression of their skill levels and to the degree that they fail, that displays a lack of skill, not some perception of "luck" rushing in to fill some void. If you make a guess in Trivial Pursuit on the question "What French leader ended his life on Saint Helena?" and you guess "Napoleon" rather than "Louis the XIV" because they are the only two you remember, that is skill, knowing the two leaders in the first place is an expression of skill (knowledge), and having some vague notion that Louis the XIV probably did not die in exile on an island is an expression of skill. Even if you "randomly" guess between the two and cannot articulate why, it is not actually random, your intuition has a basis, unless you actually flip a coin and introduce a randomized element.

The idea of luck you are talking about is the broadest definition, and is subjective. In game design, subjective perception of luck in not useful. Only completely randomized game elements are "luck", within the construct of a game's design and function. Luck that you experience externally (like eating a bad burrito, or getting a bad pairing in a tournament...tournaments rules also not being a part of chess, but added on top) in not luck *in* the game of chess you are playing.

Of course, this is an interpretation, but the difference is that one side's interpretation is based on some smattering of actuarial sciences/statistics, and the other is based on college level game design courses from Wharton and UCSCE.

"Making guesses and getting an uncertain outcome from one of both players' decisions is an expression of their skill levels" Amen, picking lottery tickets is all skill! In all seriousness, this is why such a position has failed. Because it requires the abandonment of luck as something that can be measured.

So to that end and in relation to the statement "actually flip a coin and introduce a randomized element", I would ask this question: "how do you know that flipping a coin is introducing a randomized element?"

That is, other than some variation of "I think so"/"everyone knows it is", if someone is flipping a coin and trying to make it land heads,

1) How does an observer parse whether the result of the flip is an expression of the person's skill or luck?

2) More generally, how does one determine what a "completely randomized game element" is?

3) Is the "completely" in "completely randomized" meant to indicate a specific probability measure?

None of these are answers, and all serve to dodge the very clear questions that were asked. To reiterate-- why do you believe a coin flip is a random event rather than an expression of a player's skill, other than "I think so"/"other people think so"?

"Determination of people in the field" an appeal to some unknown authority is not really an answer. Not that it matters, but what is a falsifiable way in which they make their determination?

"It's a well-known mechanism" great, but why is it a valid mechanism? What makes it a randomized event.

"Would you ask me how I know that shuffling Chance cards in Monopoly is a introducing a deliberate randomizing element?" Sure, if that's easier for you to directly answer, it is basically the same question, though I'd prefer to keep with the coin flip so we're not dealing with multiple different examples

"The same way you determine anything?" that's not an answer. I'm just interested in a direct answer to the question.

"randomized game elements in game design are decided upon by consensus" wait... are you now saying your argument rests on "some people got together and said so?" There is no falsifiable claim, just a group who says whether something is random or not that the rest of us plebs are supposed to take as gospel?!

Better yet, if you look at their last post, they admit the select anointed "game designers" do not actually have a falsifiable definition of luck, but instead these high priests reach their conclusion by gathering under the temple shroud on the Tuesday proceeding the last summer moon, confer briefly before burning incense, and exit prayerfully before handing down a list to the non-anointed detailing which events they considered and whether they viewed these events as random or not.

Some high priests were killed for their dissent in the process, and some events came to a split vote, but such things aren't for us to consider-- we're just to accept these decrees thankfully and unquestioningly.

What that translates to is that only luck that exists in a game can be one that the designer of that particular game purposefully implemented in it.

He thinks it's a matter of opinion whether other undeniable events of chance that are part of the game regardless of what the game designers wanted can be called luck or not.

I think the position is pretty clear and can be ignored. (Probably we'll keep coming back here every year or two when this gets resurrected somehow)

yes

speaking of levels, Magnus can win most pla

yers always, it's not luck. But luck as in "unforeseen things happen in chess, and neither player could predict them, and tjose unforeseen things cause another player to win an individual game"

I had to comment this ancient thread

You are even less qualified to opine on the subject, and almost every subject.

This exercise of contorting things further and further from what actually happens or is said passes for a thought process...for those who are not observant.

Disagreement with you is strong evidence of being on the right track on any given subject...as sooo many posters have essentially told you over the years.

If you have something to say that is not just contrary whining, go for it. Otherwise, go back and hide in your hole for another week.

I'm going to let this sit as your last gasp of an argument, ludicrous as it is. Why would I, or anyone else, waste their time trying to explain to you that Chance cards in Monopoly are an intentionally introduced randomizing element of the game design?

Starting a campaign for posters to report someone is a violation of the TOS.

I notice you are still unable to directly answer the question