Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Yet if your car hit a parked car, resulting in extensive damage, the owner of that car would certainly have suffered a stroke of bad luck.

Of course this is all a matter of semantics. The Oxford English Dictionary has 10 definitions of "luck". Should we go by the original meaning--"gain, profit, financial advantage"--there is obviously luck in chess; $$ is awarded to tournament winners.

I find it telling that those positing that there can be NO luck in chess resort to examples using superior aliens, gods, computers, non-existent 32-piece tablebases, etc to demonstrate their point. Humans play chess in the real world, so "the chance occurrence of situations or events favorable or unfavorable to a person's interests" (OED) sometimes affects their games.

Yes Dio, we had this discussion before and we agree to disagree. I think of it as the difference between theory and practice.

@mpaetz
Hi! I just posted another post and as often happens I forgot to refresh the screen before posting.
To have 'luck' I think a life form is needed.
And the only life we know of so far is DNA-based.
In other words 'luck' needs something or somebody (the real) to have the good or bad luck. And a sound needs something to make the sound. But it doesn't need someone to hear it to exist.
Regarding the etheral like 'object in four places at the same exact instant' I think there could be instances of luck referring to the ethereal but I haven't got one handy.

Thought experiments often make things clearer to those that are not understanding, so I make no apologies there. Luck, as people discuss it here, is like discussing love without any qualifiers...so fluffy and undefined as be largely meaningless. So I don't see the distinction as theory vs. practice, rather game designer terminology and thinking vs. a layman's.

You can't really argue with "look at the way they look at each other...now that's true love...", it's entirely subjective. The thought experiments pin things down.

But that is how the past rounds have also gone. Semantics and definitions that cannot be resolved because neither side wishes to compromise on definitions.

Luck is definitely a subjective thing.
But it exists just the same.
Some might say 'what are the objective criteria to define beauty?'
Try - there aren't any but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As for re-arranging defintions to suit any position I guess that could be done for anything.
But that doesn't mean that 'compromise' would be needed.
Nor a dictionary.
Communication can be had with the common usages of terms.
Happens all the time.
You don't have 100% control over your opponent.
What he does or doesn't affects the outcome.
Conclusion: Luck definitely exists in chess. And in multiple forms too.

That perception of luck is a human conceit, much like the "does a tree falling in the forest make a sound?" question. If a falling tree moves the air around it, which radiates outward in waves, then whether there's a human ear perceiving it is immaterial, but since the question is human-centric and says "sound", technically there's no "sound" without the perception component of it. Is that component important in the scheme of things? Only to the conceited human who wants to subconsciously believe the universe only exists when they interact with it.

In terms of perceived luck, it's the same thing. If there's no human around to feel lucky, good or bad, is there any luck by that definition? Immaterial. Luck in the context of game design refers to random and pseudo-random factors that complicate a game such that even perfect play will not always result in a predictable outcome.

(Note that my discussion of luck definitions does not indicate that I am trying to re-engage in the main topic, this is just a point of interest)

Dio I agree with you about the sound thing.
But 'luck' is not the same thing.
Definitely the subjective being is needed for luck to exist.
Whether you call it perceived luck or just luck.
Sound is a physical thing. So no human or other life-form needed.
They're not the same.
'Cracked' again.
----------------------------------------
And 'luck' is not 'immaterial' either.
It matters. And people know it.
And you know it too.
Regarding the people who reject sound as not existing if somebody isn't around to hear it ...
that's persons who are perhaps 'conceited' about humanity as a whole and humanize things in an unrealistic way.
Like for example mistakenly assigning evolution as being about Darwin.
Elroch made a good joke when he said that's like seeing gravity as being about Einstein.
-------------------------
I discovered a while back that many people believe that nonliving things 'can't do something' or they take that position.
Then I was shocked to see how far they take that.
I said 'No ... they aren't ... uh oh.'

It seems that "cracked" is also a perceived thing...

The crux of our disagreement. Certainly there is no element of chance deliberately included in the "game design", but "chess" also refers to the practical play between two humans in whatever circumstances they play in. Once we get into actual application of the game's principles in the real world we find that in rare instances human imperfections in such application will allow "outside" factors to determine results.

I have reason to conclude (a long time ago) that 'luck' is always in play ...
with some exceptions.
Corpses in the cemetery. 'Luck' is no longer in play for them.
Good or bad. Not there anymore.
The weather 6000 years ago.
If luck was relevant to that then - its not relevant to that now.
But determinism is not in play on that either.
It was what it was. And no 'skill' can change that. Ever.
------------------------------
A striking example the other way:
Self-driving cars.
Luck definitely in play.
Bad luck.
People may argue: 'But but - human drivers have more accidents than ...'
Self-driving cars. An 'accident' just Aching to happen ...

There's a fundamental difference between games like chess or checkers (that are deterministic, perfect information games) and games like backgammon (non-deterministic), stratego (imperfect information) or poker (both), i.e. games that have luck built into the rules.

If you play a perfect game of chess or checkers, you are guarantied to win (unless your opponent plays perfectly too, then you draw). Playing perfectly in a game of poker or backgammon does not guaranty anything. You can lose in poker or backgammon even if you play perfectly.

Magnus Carlsen will beat anyone of you clowns 100% of the time, no exceptions. But if you play a heads up match against Phil Ivey (who's arguably Magnus Carlsen of poker), you have a realistic chance of coming out on top. Because of luck that you will never find in a game of chess against Carlsen.

You're right, that is the crux of it. If two kids get killed accidently in a drone strike while playing hide and seek in a corn field, I look at it as two human beings suffering due to a completely unrelated event that is definitely not part of hide and seek, regardless of the game state at that moment. Will human beings apply perceived luck there and say the outcome of the game was unlucky and that hide and seek always contains such possibilities? Probably not. They will say the kids were unlucky, though.

If you took the quotes off of "outside" we'd probably be in agreement .

The ultimate argument for chess involving luck boils down to the following rather tautological observation: "everything that humans do involves luck." It is hard to argue against and completely uninteresting.

There is no luck in this game because it was because your opponent had a skill issue.

Thats luck lol

Chess isn't designed for luck but human factor or a outside factor makes it involve luck

do u have a life by any chance? (metaphorically)

Yes... Chess is a multiple choice question with two competitors. If you know every aswer you're guaranteed a draw. Luck in multiple choice questions comes from the fact that you don't have to know the answer to get it right. Chess is extremely complicated so it's unlikely to get right answers without any knowledge or with wrong knowledge, but it happens. The complexity brings the amount of luck down.

I agree with the 'hard to argue against' part.
Regarding 'uninteresting' that's incidental and irrelevant and itself 'uninteresting'.
Regarding a 'tautology' apparently such a thing can be valid or invalid.
-------------------------------------
"everything that humans do involves luck." while that is valid plus the human or humans don't have to be 'doing something' for luck to have potential ... there's also the issue of whether 'involvement of luck' is scalar or not. Of course it is.
Its not a binary thing. Sometimes its reduced sometimes its increased. Obviously there's more 'luck involvement' in poker than in chess but that doesn't mean that 'luck involvement' in chess isn't heavily there. A player's results are influenced heavily by his opponent's play over which the player has no '100% determinism' or anything even approaching that.

Yes. And well put.
And the human luck factors are heavy. Always there.
-----------------------------
Even in games between computers. Heavy factors in the programming and the imperfections of the 'engines'.
Two identical engines not designed for luck play each other and draw.
Were the engines 'lucky'? They can't be.
--------------------------
But that's a big pitfall because it sets up for 'misconceptions of determinism'.
The engines aren't 'lucky' but is the contest 'lucky'?
Still doesn't resolve the paradox.
But this does:
The programmer says to himself. 'whew!. I programmed both computers. Its my software. I want them to look perfect and people to claim their game is 'perfect'. Whew! Good thing that I got away with programming them so they can't catch each others mistakes properly! Good thing I programmed them so that 'playing for draw versus playing for the win is Obfuscated and they didn't win/lose, Whew! Odds in my favor but I appreciate the Luck! Its better not taking things for granted'

I don't agree that everything humans do involves luck. All skill based competitions that are free of external factors, like chess is, are luck free. Chess doesn't even need a human player. If there is no luck in engine play, there is no luck in chess. So thats that argument double refuted.

Actualyt sometimes people zone out sometimes that can be considered lucky especially when they see the move you can get lucky if your opponent blunders a winning position that was easy to convert for example or if you miss click or if your internet crashes ...so on