Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

If two identical computers play chess (however powerful) and one beats another, is it lucky? Luck requires a payoff of sorts (either fortune or adverse), by definition those machines are no more affected than playerafar's IO example, and he said there was no luck in that case because there is nothing there to "care" about the outcome. Is the chess those machines played any less chess than when played by sentient competitors? Why is "chess" in one case different than the other? Defining "chess" requiring human competitors is critical for the "luck" argument to have any traction at all afaic. Otoh, regardless of who or what is choosing moves, the game itself is the same and have objective outcomes, it's only the consequence of those outcomes having a "payoff" a playing agent experiences to be classified as "lucky" or not. The no-luck people are arguing from the mathematics of data structure and transformation rules (as chess) since that operation does not require humans to be involved to get game legal outcomes. It doesn't matter that it was "designed" with humans as the only computational agent available originally, the mathematical consequences of those rules was the same then as it is now.

"If two identical computers play chess (however powerful) and one beats another, is it lucky?"
Nobody knows that there are not 'forced wins' from the first move - by either side.
In other words chess is not solved.
So it could be a win and 'not lucky' or it could be 'lucky' because one programmer didn't program his computer well enough.
Or didn't have an equal computer.
Or the time limits on moves wasn't enough or not suitable for the programming he was using.
-----------------------
One could also consider the issue of how the computers are programmed to 'play for the win' or 'play for the draw' ...
So its not simple.

I would agree there.

Took that photo at a dollar store recently ...

what do we define by luck?

I disagree.
The human playing non-randomly just sets up Magnus even more powerfully as he will be extremely likely to 'know what that player is doing'.
It makes the weaker players chances even worse.
Strong human players often think 'why did he make that move?' and so often they're right - especially against weaker players.
This increases the advantage of the stronger player even more.
As for superstrong engines would they be programmed with 'why did he make that move?' Unlikely.
Where the engines are stronger is the Implications of a move rather than 'why'.

Nobody said that.

Recently one of my opponents hung his queen even though he was not under time pressure. So I got lucky. Luck exists in chess.

It does confuse people tho it's not always a good strategy tho

For his opponent maybe but for him you wouldn't be expecting that type of blunder it's more luck when your opponent makes random blunder rather than skill it's not like you can force your opponent to blunder (well you can but not that type of queen hang )

Making a losing blunder is a case of lack of or improper application of skill.

Usually the luckier you are the more you don't have to apply skill to win sometimes wins involved almost no skill at all and just getting lucky with checkmates in one for you it might be lucky but for your opponent it's skill the only skill you can control is your own having no luck at all would imply that you can control all your opponents responded

There are several variants of luck vs. skill belief here:

No luck

Random selection of moves is luck

Random events happening *to* players is luck

Decisions made *by* players are luck

Decisions made only by opponent are luck, but only to the other player

'luck' is not a belief though.
Its a reality.
Like beauty - ugliness - happiness - dismay and so on.
But those are only realities for the living.

Maybe you didn't understand, the two computers (including the software) are identical. I'll repeat what you didn't address: Luck requires a payoff of sorts (either fortune or adverse), by definition those machines are no more affected than playerafar's IO example, and he said there was no luck in that case because there is nothing there to "care" about the outcome. Is the chess those machines played any less chess than when played by sentient competitors? Why is "chess" in one case different than the other?

@cadmiumpatzer
My post wasn't just addressed to your post.
I don't operate that way.
I make my posts on my terms.
So that means my post addressed both the context of your post and beyond it too.
Get it now? Understand?
Why would you assume that I would post on your terms?
And all that bold print means you're getting more upset.
Uh oh.

Yes, it's how I win all my games.

You don't.
You've lost four straight.

To wit: "Why is a machine that always flips a fair coin to land 'heads up' any different than a human that attempts to flip a fair coin to land 'heads up'? Why is 'flipping a coin' in one case different than the other?"

lol, no, I was trying to call attention to what you don't respond to. Just saying your post addresses more than one thing doesn't mean that it does. If you avoid answering direct questions directly, it might make one think you are reluctant to answer. I have no emotional attachment to the contents of this thread, I just see ships passing in the night. I was merely pointing out your own statements about inanimate objects not being capable of luck in your distinction between luck and unpredictability, if you remember and highlighting a similar situation in the "game" of "chess" as the terms are being carelessly thrown about. Get it now? Understand?

Agreed. Though, that can be viewed as good fortune for your opponent.

"Luckily for me, my opponent wasn't playing too well that day ..."