Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

If there is a bad move, there is a better move. Why is that statement rubbish?  In the example given by Ziryab, there is a bad move. 

The best move is not the worst move. There is always a best move. 

The best move might still be a losing move. 

In that example, one move to consider, is the king moves away and lets his rook be taken, and then all can walk away , knowing what good sportsmanship is? Longs it is not for the gold crown!

None of those moves are any good. But, 1.Ra5, 1.Rb5, 1.Rc5, 1.Rd5, and 1.Re5 are all equally correct. Each one forces 1...Kh7, then 2.R(a,b,c,d, or e)8 Kh6 and 3.Rh8#.

The shortest route to mate is the best move, and the correct one. In my example there are five correct moves, none better than any other. There are hundreds of such positions I could compose in a few seconds or pull from my memory. This one is a variation of one I learned more than twenty years ago from Pandolfini's Endgame Course.

Here there is a single best move. White mates in two.

There is not necessarily a single best move in every positions, but there is always a certain number of best moves in positions that are either a forced win or a forced draw for a player making the move. From game theoretical point of view they are all equally strong, all other moves being bad. In a third type of position, in which our opponent has a forced win, there are simply no good moves (or you might say that the set of best moves is empty).

Chess has not been solved, but from a theoretical (mathematical) point of view it is absolutely solvable. We know for a fact that the solution exists, we just may never have enough computing power to find it.

@Optimissed When matters can be forced, the shortest route to mate is always best. However, other moves that retain a clear win are not blunders. Some endgame theorists may call them inaccuracies. 

In this position, from one of my tournament games, there is a single correct move. It wins, while all others lose.

I anticipated that position from one four moves earlier. Here one move wins, while all others lead to a slight edge for Black. 

In between these two positions, I had multiple winning moves is two instances, but a single winning and only non-losing move one other time.

There can be one correct move, there can be multiple equally correct moves, there can be many winning moves, but often one stands slightly above the others.

From mathematical perspective chess is solvable in a sense that it does have a solution and there is a well defined algorithm for finding it. Period, end of story.

There are some arguments that it is not solvable practically as we may never have enough computational power. I do not have a s strong opinion on this one.

That's the critical move that I found before exchanging rooks. Without it, Black has more pawn moves once the predictable zugzwang position is reached. This one move removes two of Black's, as each loses a pawn.

Necessary for whom? I think humanity has enough problems that are more important than solving a board game. I am totally fine with chess never being solved.

It was a memorable and successful endgame that also gave me sole possession of second place in a very strong tournament. The game was part of my best streak ever—eleven consecutive wins, most against opponents who were 1850-2050, and led to my peak USCF rating just above 1980.

My opponent and I both use the endgame in our teaching. He’s USCF Expert Class with a rating near 2100 last time I checked.

I agree with those who say that luck plays a bigger role when the players are inexperienced, and becomes less and less of a factor, the more experienced the players get.

With novices, the "luck" takes the form of players wandering into winning or losing positions, by accident. A player might stumble into a mating net, without either player even realizing it.

"Oh! I checkmated you? What? Okay, hah! I was just trying to move my knight away from your bishop..."

I'd call that a form of luck.

well in openings there certainly is luck for example if you want to play kings gambit e4 e5 is compulsory

Every move in Chess is based on a decision by a person. There is no random chance in Chess.

Maybe you can explain it. I see zero random chance in a game that requires human decisions for every move. 

The test we performed in the debate over Chess being a sport, it is complete and I am unblocking you. Your claim that only you were keeping the debate alive has been proven false. Since I blocked you, the thread is still going alive and well. Thank you for participating in this scientific endeavor. 

That’s just it. The thread didn’t die. It’s alive and well. I can go count the number of posts since you were blocked if you wish. Blocking you and not telling anyone would make no difference, as the minute you were blocked nobody remembered you. They simply went on with life without you. No need to continue the experiment. 

You were blocked on post 148 2 days ago, and there are now 189 posts. I think the post count by others per day increased after you were blocked. 

When that decision appears to be grounded in whimsey, does the result of the game proceed from chance?

When my four year old asked me to teach him to play chess and showed me that he had the chessboard already set up--correctly--I thanked the stars that my offspring was a prodigy. When we played, he took whatever piece struck his fancy and placed it on the square of the piece I had just moved. When I tried to to the same, he pointed out that I needed to play by the rules I had taught him.

The result of every game was predetermined. After a year of this play, I let him know that now he also had to play by the rules I taught. He did not object.

Turns out he was not a prodigy.

When I watch beginners play, the moves often remind me of my four year old son. I stated in another thread that at that level, blitz is a game of luck. It's not meant to insult, but to observe that game design and practical play do not always mesh.