Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Neither player has absolute control over his or her own 'ability' or 'level'.
That has never happened and never will.
Which means luck is Always part of it.
Why would anyone cling to an unreality that it 'has no part'?
Apparently - because its an extreme view.

Human body function, food poisoning, world coming to an end can all by the same logic considered as luck factors for a game of chess if you will. That makes for a pretty stupid discussion. They do affect human ability. Strictly luck in chess excludes the external world and considers factors within the game rules.

Why you ask? Because arguments more logical support this view than yours.

The problem is luck in chess format exclude the external world cause we humans live in it and outside factors do in fact effect play

We could argue that super computers have less luck and it involves even more skill because external factors effect it even less

And your local internet provider and electric utility control whether you even have a board on which to play your chess.com games. When one of these entities fails one of the players and they lose on time your idea that "relationship between the two players abilities determines the outcome of the game" is patently untrue.

This kind of thing was not planned for in the game design, nor intended by the website to be the determining factor in game results, but still it happens. Just bad luck for one of the players.

Somebody just said 'the problem is'
something doesn't become true because whoever wishes to Ordain it.
Denying that luck exists in human situations ... such denial is an extreme view.
With lots of evidence that it is extreme. And invalid.
'the problem'.
I think its 'their problem' because throughout their life whoever clings to such denial is going to be constantly reminded that good fortune and bad fortune exist but its the latter that will get their attention.
The more they can 'dodge' bad fortune the more they'll get the illusion it doesn't exist.
Success causing superstition is very related to 'power corrupts'.
Strong parallels.

We've been down this road already, too. Conflating lack of skill with luck as if they are two ends of the same spectrum.

Skill and luck are both spectrums...*separate spectrums*. Skill is also a fluctuating range from move to move. When skills fails you, that is a display of lack of skill, not luck. For the purposes of a discussion of luck *in chess*, we clearly must be talking about objective luck, not subjective/perceived luck. If your definition of luck is self-centered and only applies to one player, not the other and not the game itself, it doesn't actually exist except as a perception. All the arguments about "I'm lucky if my opponent does not play skillfully" fall prey to this error. Objective luck applies from either and any perspective. You could make a 2x2 graph and map out every anecdotal situation on the two spectrums, no skill versus perfect skill, non-random vs. completely random. The problem is, the random stuff falls outside of the game (with initial color selection being the exception, and that is the a design issue most turn-based games have, somebody has to go first).

Would you try to claim that humans cannot beat engines anymore because they get unlucky more than engines do? No, they lack the skills. Some skills applicable to chess that humans often fail at:

Calculation

Positional knowledge (opening, middle, and endgames)

Focus

Maintaining good health

Discarding biases

These are mental lapses when not achieved.

Lightning strike = luck external to chess

"Grandma died last night and I lost my game" = lack of skill, loss of focus

"My opponent blundered in time pressure" = lack of skill

The arguments here often center around "but this applies to all humans and is part of life, so it's just luck when it fluctuates"...no. Humans are just really bad at chess. So bad that we invented a machine that learned in *4 hours* (unfettered by human biases and misunderstandings baked into traditional engines) to be better than every human being that ever existed and all chess knowledge humans accumulated for centuries.

So, if people define luck as a fuzzy variable and wax poetic about it, more power to them . Nobody wants to think that they suck at something, which is why perceived luck even exists. It's a defense mechanism for your ego. Ironically, people have posited that people with my viewpoint hold it because they want to think of themselves as skillful and not lucky. Not for me. I'm as horrible at chess as the next person. Embrace the suck and enjoy yourself, you'll be happier. It's just a game, albeit a really interesting game that has evolved into something special among games.

Sure...but not luck in the game of chess.

I don't think you are really understanding the distinction. All games have some sort of rules, the point of chess and tic-tac-toe is they are games with perfect information... it's just math essentially. i.e. there is no "fog of war". Your examples don't apply because they are a different class of game that involves hidden variables that the participants cannot know to arbitrary degrees of precision (e.g. in golf a sudden gust of wind occurs just after you hit the ball and your shot goes awry). In principle, there is nothing on this planet you must know besides the current position in order to compute the next best move to avoid a loss. (e.g. the old saw play the position, not the player) In practice, psychology, sickness, and other extrinsic factors can effect the outcome.

Not that experienced, but I don't think there is any real luck in chess. Other than deciding who is white or black. Or the computer or a person randomly selecting your next opponent. Everything else is made through errors and planning etc.

Isn't the destinction that theoretically chess has no luck but in practice there's at least a small amount of luck

"I don't think you are really understanding the distinction. "
the 'distinction' doesn't change anything.
The fact that poker has more luck than chess doesn't mean chess has no luck.
You could argue till the end of time and you'll never prove it doesn't.
'Less' is not 'nothing'.
Somebody - not I - is repeating mistakes in 'associative logic' I think its called.
'Nothing' can be 'Less'.
But it doesn't follow that 'Less' is nothing.
Try colors instead.
Carrots are orange.
This does not mean everything orange is a carrot.
Get it?
There's nobody in this forum who doesn't.
But hey - big payoff for ignoring it right?

Want to make progress?
If you do - you might have to do something you regard as a 'concession'.

'We've been down this road already'
Well some are 'down that road' and I think they'll 'stay down it'
'We' there doesn't look right.

Yes, there was luck involved in the outcome of that game of chess.

That is an unsupportable statement. When Carlsen plays a 1000 rated player and wins, there is zero luck involved, just a massive skill differential.

That distinction you made is where the impasse will always be. No ill will or hard feelings involved...but yeah, this is why this thread is futile and will always fade in an out with new rounds of people arguing the same points to this exact conclusion.

This by itself means nothing as far as the topic is concerned, unless you are arguing with a hardcore determinist who states that there is no randomness in the universe at all. Quantum mechanics kind of put an end to that one...

Yes, my reply covered that. No absolute determinists have declared themselves here. Nobody on this thread (this recent go-round, anyway) has tried to say luck doesn't exist.