Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

There's all those 'extra' factors that obviously involve luck like a player's connection failing during a game ...
but even without those - luck is always there.
-------------------------
What else is 'always there' for living things?
DNA. All the time.
The drive to survive.
Its there even when its gone around or defeated or ignored.
Various emotions and other subjectives. Even when one isn't aware - they're there subconsciously in 'higher' beings anyway.
---------------------
Exception: if you're in a coma.
Or the brain is otherwise dysfunctional or severely damaged.
Can a person in coma be 'lucky'?
Sure. When and if they recover from it.
----------------------------------
Some would argue - they can't be 'lucky' when they're in the coma because they would neither be aware nor appreciative nor dismayed by good or bad luck while they're in it. I say - they can still be lucky even then. There's still 'luck' there. Or bad luck.
If the coma is permanent can they then be lucky? In at least two ways - yes.
Can it be known that a coma will be permanent?
No except it might turn out that way.
Coma is different from 'brain dead' which may as well be 'corpse dead'.
I've been maintaining that corpses can't be 'lucky'.
But even there there's an argument they can be.
Because of things they might have been facing if they lived.

no

Whatever you were having while writing this, get me some of that.

Connection failing is another instance of an external factor that the concept of chess doesn't involve.

All those instances are examples of player ability related events that did not happen by chance. Last one I addressed in my previous post.

Alot f those are related to chance

Or "unknown factor " not necessarily 100% randomness but it still effects play and can be considered luck and yes people do blunder randomly very occasionally which can sometimes involve luck

Luck is relative to the person who considered there to be luck in the game

No, they're all "skill issues". Unknown factors also only exist due to lack of skill.

That's not how that works lol outside factors factor into skill

It's not like chess is all luck obviously but games do have an small element of luck in them typically

Luck isn't the same thing as complete randomness

And again You Missed It.
Failing to grasp that factors whether internal or external can and do Affect and Determine the Outcome.
And most people observe and experience that right away and know that whoever just hasn't got 100% determinism. No matter how much Skill. Not hard to grasp.
OOS - I think people could tell you this 1000 times and you still wouldn't get it or pretend not to.
-------------------------
If you want to tell somebody 2+2 = 3 and argue with them when they disagree you will find people to do that with and spend your entire life trying to demonstrate that you can and will impose your invalid point as if you were giving somebody knight odds in a game.
Good luck in your quest to make that work for you and to justify the investment of time.
Your time.

Your turn is your skill you opponent move is your lock

1 bad move cancels 50 good ones. That is not luck.

forgetting that its the opponent who could make that move.
You had Mind Control over him and made him blunder?

External factors don't matter. If the opponent thinks about a move and then realizes that he made a blunder, its his fault and didn't think about the move. That is "skill issue".

Wrong.
Its both.
One doesn't knock out the other.
Proof - it changes the result.
Obviously. Obviously changes the result.
Why do people try to defend extreme determinism?
Probably similiar to the same reason some people try to defend extreme fatalism too.
----------------------
Neither one is valid.
Most of the time most people know the deal ...
if you want better results in whatever you have to try - but that doesn't mean you've got a power crystal ball that Ordains the future.
There's no such thing.
One can't even know the future let alone Ordain it.
Everybody knows that reality lies in grey areas between helplessness and rain man ism.
Sometimes people are helpless. And sometimes - because of factors beyond their control they have short term absolute control of something.
You swing your hammer down onto a nail. Hard.
And most of the time that nail is going to sink down into that wood.
How much of the time is a thermonuclear fireball going to varporize you and the nail and the wood before the hammer drives the nail?
Or there's a Richter 9.0 at that exact moment and the wood and nail shift.
Point: temporary local control of a very simple thing that can't even resist - isn't 100% deterministic control.
Everybody knows it. Even 4 year olds know it. Subconsciously.
Dogs know it. When dinner's late you might hear about it.
-----------------
But that doesn't stop some people trying to claim the earth is Flat.

Please get to the point. The only thing I'm seeing is meaningless quotes. Just get to the point!

There is 'luck' in chess if you play for example. You blunder, but then bc you've 'luck', They don't see it

Yes !! Another good example !!
Then you win.
But Yermo used to say (Yermolinsky) - 'the opponent loses'.

And VCY not getting it that there's more than one point.
Main points have already been made and VCY can read back.
People are trying to make many 'arguments' so there are many counterpoints with no 'the' point among them.
Its not a courtroom here.

I fully see your argument of course.

We both know that chess is skill vs skill. An individuals skill is a range, that fluctuates. Your argument is, that even tho a game of chess is fully skill based, it's down to luck where exactly on their range of skill your opponent happens to place while playing against you. Low end is lucky for you - high end is unlucky. You view the opponent and their fluctuating skill as a random variable that is dictated by chance.

Taking this argument into pieces it must be said that a chess player, their fluctuating skill, neuro transmitters in their brain, should be viewed as a random variable that can't be controlled by the other player.

So thats definitely a form of luck, not fluffy but real. But the human opponent and their complex functionality shouldn't be viewed as a part of the concept of chess. Chess exists without human. Human is an external factor that can use chess, but isn't in chess. Therefore I hereby refute the argument of human factors as luck in chess.