Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

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.

this is my alt

wait

this is

I said nothing like that, the distinction is on what people define what chess is. The disagreement is really about differing definitions of terns in the OP.

I didn't say it was about you - no need to get defensive.
There's a lot of people in the forum.

It might be unfortunate that the topic is worded the way it is.
But I don't want to knock the name.
The OP had the courage to set up the forum and that part is that.
But -
The actual reality - and the thing I think people are more concerned with throughout the entire population of the world ...
is 'the degree of luck involved' not some extreme 'binary exclusion dogma'.
-----------------
We could take a look at how the degree of luck varies in different chess situations relevant to the strength of the opponents.
Where its better strengths plural.
Where is luck maximized and where is it minimized?
I would say its maximized when you have too equally matched players who are also beginners.
There'll be minimal skill and maximal luck determining each outcome.
----------------------------
But a mistake could be any claim that the converse is true.
It isn't.
And that's one of the big blunders.
That if you put two very strong GMs up against each other that happen to be about equal in strength (you could never know they're Precisely equal) then 'luck is minimized'.
Its not. Its still Very Much there.
Not as much as in too equal beginners though.
------------------------------------------
Here's the 'Minimal luck situation' ...
and that would be when you put a strong GM against a beginner.
There's very little luck involved because there's simply no room for it.
But even there - there's some. By the way the players are an 'internal' factor. They're internal to the game. Could the weaker player win by 'internal luck' ? Yes but its very unlikely. His GM opponent has a stroke.
The beginner would have more chance with 'external luck'.
There's a power failure and the game is declared a draw.
---------------------------------------------------
The most famous case in history of a Mismatch with 'minimal luck incidence'?
could be when the World Champion of all time at Getting Paid ...
played the strongest player of all time.
That's right. It happened.
Bill Gates played Magnus Carlsen.
Gates thought it was so funny he probably played weaker than he would have.
---------------------------
Yes I'll dig up the video when I get the time. If I do.

Ok here it is.
A 'luck minimized' situation.
But its still potentially there both internally and externally.
Which means its still there.
I think the game did go more than 12 seconds. Maybe Magnus only 'used' 12 seconds although I got the impression he used less than that. Although like all good players he's using his opponent's clock time too.

Of course you were lucky.
But why would luck and randomness have to be in separate universes?

First, get your terminology straight. The binary field Z/2Z is a scalar (that's just my inner math nerd getting upset).

And yes, when it comes to the difference between games like chess, checkers or go (deterministic perfect information games) and games like backgammon, stratego or poker (non-deterministic, imperfect information or both), it is pretty much binary.

If you have a winning position in chess, perfect play guaranties you win. If you have a winning position in stratego, poker or backgammon, perfect play does not guaranty anything. You can play perfectly, your opponent can play horrendously, and you can still lose. That's the luck that does not exist in chess.

Not 'binary field'.
Just 'binary'.
And its already right because 'binary' in this whole context is already wrong.
Dead wrong.
The issue isn't whether there's luck or not.
That's 'bait and switch'.
The issue is how much.
To see an example of where there isn't much room for luck but its still potentially there which means its there - see my vid post a few minutes ago about Bill Gates (yes That Bill Gates) versus Magnus Carlson.
Gates thought about castling a bit and then did it.
Right into the Firestorm.
Heh heh heh.

@playerafar

Ok, I'll repeat it:

There's a fundamental difference between games like chess, checkers or go (deterministic perfect information games) and games like backgammon, stratego or poker (non-deterministic, imperfect information or both).

HERE IT IS:

If you have a winning position in chess (or go or checkers), perfect play GUARANTIES you win. If you have a winning position in stratego, poker or backgammon, perfect play does not guaranty anything. You can play perfectly, your opponent can play horrendously, and you can still lose. That's the luck that does not exist in chess. In no way. Nada. Zip. Zero such luck.

The problem is humans are the outside factor and whatever happens to them to

There is almost negligible luck in computer chess but that's probably why they draw almost very game and suck at winning despite making mistakes

The problem is that's theoretical that doesn't happen enough for it to have a big enough effect there aren't that many perfect games out there