Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

No-but neither do anyone's chess moves. The effects of any particular meteorological phenomenon on any particular point on Earth are to a degree a matter of chance. If hailstones the size of golf balls fall in Illinois and damage every greenhouse in Naperville while missing Aurora (just a few miles away) entirely, that wasn't the result of careful planning and foresight on the part of the people who founded the two towns more than150 years ago--it was just chance. If a tornado touches down in Topeka and wipes out several houses while leaving the houses across the street untouched, was that skill or the lack thereof by either set of residents, or was it mere chance?

So when weather, or fire, or accident, or sabotage cuts off electricity to one player's computer, resulting in victory for the opponent, chess skill played NO part in the result, and your statement that winning/losing is all due to skill and no luck can be involved is clearly incorrect.

1450 is a great rating in my opinion!

Getting on topic, many times I have an advantage in games but accidentally blunder by lifting the mouse somewhere unintentionally. I might consider that unlucky, but it's probably just me messing up. Overall, every sport, including chess, has some form of luck (such as if your bike breaks down in cycling), but chess isn't very luck-based except in rare scenarios.

If you compare chess with tournament poker - chess is going to look less luck-based than it is.
In tennis - you often see the seeded players coming through to the quarterfinals and semis and finals.
And in chess you'll often see the strongest players coming through to vying for top finishers in the finall rounds.
But both games have substantial elements of chance. Luck. Fortunes. Various kinds of 'fortuitious' and 'unfortunate' circumstances.

mpaetz constantly makes good posts.
-------------------------
In various kinds of denialisms it seems that some individuals are capable of believing that some persons are paid to 'rig' the weather.
They're capable of believing that somebody 'got paid' to cause fundamental events like the spinning of the earth on its own axis.
And of course we see the pathetic spectacle of flat-earthism.
And I've seen at least one person in these forums claiming the chess games on the site are 'rigged'. A recent claim.
----------------------
Point: some are capable of believing that something is true because he or she says so.
At least three of them in this forum.
But its a kind of behaviour that happens a lot with adolescents.
Adolescent males that is. 
They tend to think they're the 'center of the universe'.
But its usually a 'young man' thing. They wise up later.
But there's one exception to that on the website. And he's in this forum. And its Not I.

@playerafar

Maybe part of the issue you may be experiencing is that you frequently misunderstand arguments of others' and then in your response misrepresent them to conveniently make a nonrelevant counterpoint. Even in this post. Another one might be your tendecy to focus on the personal qualities of someone opposing you, rather than their argument. Just my observation of course.

If you're an imperfect player there will be some positions where you can't tell what the best move is. So you guess. If you're lucky the move you chose will turn out to be the best move. If you're unlucky it'll be a mistake.

Call it the way you like it.

Speaking of hypocritical, read your own post. It says "I know my arguments are right because they are right in my estimation, and I know your argument are obviously false and being misrepresented because they are wrong in my estimation", no more, no less. You have zero basis for this outlook as a general default, and this statement supports nothing you are positing, because the reasoning is as circular as it gets. Laughably so.

Most people that use circular reasoning do it because they have too many layers involved, and the fact that their argument is ultimately relying on itself to prove itself is obscured. You have no layers. It's just immediately circular: "my proof of being right is that I'm always right, and I know this...because I'm right". Nobody with a lick of sense argues this way.

Just your mistakes. Of course.

There is Optimissed trolling again - but for some reason the other two would rather attack Dio.
Why? Because they don't want Optimissed trolling them too?
The O-person knows that he trolls.
Wants to serve notice that he'll get away with it year in year out.
But many members - and the staff - think differently. And act on that.
And 'O' knows that too. But doesn't intend to admit it.
------------------------------
Regarding another person on the site - publically claiming in the forums that the chess on the site is 'rigged' - that person has been banned by the chess.com staff for abuse and his silly forum deleted.

Regarding whether luck 'exists' in chess there would be some who would argue that luck doesn't exist at all. That there's no such thing.
For those who don't believe that luck exists - they could or would argue therefore that luck doesn't exist in chess either.
Luck is a subjective thing. Like beauty. Horror.
Probably there's an infinite set of such things.
They exist.
But can you form 'objective criteria' to define their existence?
Idea: You'd find you can't. But people could claim they do.
Many absolutely don't want to hear about 'objective criteria'.
In one of the clubs here - an admin wanted to ban a club member who asked this question:
'What are the objective criteria for morality?'
Fortunately (convoluted but simple) the other admins overruled that corrupt admin.
But by and large - the public forums on the site are run more fairly than clubs on the site pretending to be 'permissive' about certain subjects.
But to do that and for other reasons - various subjects not allowed in the public forums.
-----------------------------------------
What are the objective criteria for 'luck'?
You might find there aren't any.
Plenty of subjective criteria though.
The subjective exists. Its obvious. People are guided by it. It causes things to happen.
Lots of arguments could be had about that though.
There are lots of subjective criteria for 'luck'.
Criteria. Don't cry a lot of Cry Tears ia about it though.

Maybe the game itself is "logical thinking " but then again logical thinking sometimes has a random element to it for example when your guessing you can also increase chances of being "lucky " or not lucky by playing a certain way and logically doing what you think is right (sometimes it isn't )

Plus feelings are involved (sometimes) with how well you do in chess which makes it even worse

You convinced them your untrustworthy tho

You might wanna do a better job of convincing them... Skill issue

Idk I'm just writing something for the achievement

Also luck beats skill there is at least a couple 100-400 elos that beat gms out of complete luck (humans hang mate in ones sometimes ) are they more skilled did they think more logical or have a better strategy most likely not ...

Objective criteria can be defined for luck. I think luck and chance can be used almost interchangeably, with luck often used from a specific point of view describing in whos favour the chance or luck turned out to be. Some subjectivity will be present in defining exactly that, who is the party that benefited from an event of chance. The following could fit the criteria off the top of my head.

-Atleast partially a probabilistic event

-Involves uncertainty or randomness

-Quantifiable likelihood

I think the difficulty in differentiating events that involve chance from "deterministic" events that should oppose events of chance comes from the fact that if you look deep enough, chance or luck is involved in almost everything, all the way to quantum level processes. In carefully defined/narrowed subjects it may be possible. In general we live in a varying levels of uncertainty.

Objective criteria for luck?
If there's nothing or nobody who cares - luck could exist?
Related to this is an old question about does a tree make sound when it falls if nobody's around to hear it fall?
Of course it does. Of course it makes sound.
But that's sound. Not luck.
Can trees be 'lucky'?
How about rocks?
Rocks - no. They don't care. Plus - they're not 'trying to survive' either.
Trees? Trees are organisms. DNA-based.
Would they survive if there was nothing within them causing survival to happen?
And is there a demarcation between 'trying to survive' and 'caring'?
Probably not. No binary arbitrary either or. Its a scalar thing.
'trying to survive' and 'caring' aren't the same but there isn't a knife edge between them either.
---------------------------
@Kotshmot
Hi ! Nice to see you here.
Regarding luck versus chance there is a difference.
Luck pervades everywhere regarding living things.
But regarding the non-living?
Chance does. So does sequence. And process. Processes.
But luck? That's different.

Read the bolded statement a thousand times until it sinks in what you are actually saying.

Seriously, how did you make it to your mid-70s this way...

Anyway, thanks for the sterling example of your thought processes. I suspect you'll be seeing it again when you try to beat down other posters with "I'm right because I find that I am right" arguments. I would make it your profile blurb, it encapsulates you well at a high level.

Yes like I said luck is usually used in a context where there is a subjective point of view to the event of chance. Chance and luck both refer to a probabilistic event but if you choose to use the word "luck" there exists a benefitting or suffering party interacting with this event. Chance can be referred to without a point of view. That's a good addition to the criteria.

By objective criteria I mean criteria that objectively define conditions for an event that involves luck.