Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

My point, and it's a short one, is that characterizing somebody as having changed to Y makes an assumption about what they were before (X) that serves a narrative and does not serve X.

Let's also put that narrative behind, and move on.

well put! i couldn’t agree more!

You think he really deleted all his posts and somehow managed to put them back into old pages when he decided to return?

Yes, he was, and has been many times.

As was ibrust, not sure of his history.

The username is "opti" (as in something optimal), plus "missed". Easy to remember. Perhaps you were looking up the wrong account.

Dio correct as usual.
'missed'.
Lol.

Lol!
AGC doesn't know how muting works.
Shouldn't say 'wasn't' while not knowing how it works.
Better to ask so as to find out.

In life you don't have every variable right in front of you. Precisely why there is no luck in chess.

We make every move ourselves and every benefit we are able to get is a result of skill.

Thanks for agreeing with me!

not really its alot of it but not all of it

You're going to need something more in your argument, BigChessplayer. Chess is a game of full information. That actually implies all of it.

information is still not luck

you could use the same argument for alot of strategy game :/ maybe the game itself doesn't involve luck theoretically but there's still other factors (example mood ) but i don't really feel like going into detail but usually beginners have to get luckier to win more games unless they get better . a better player doesn't need to get lucky to win a game as much of the time but a better player also knows how to make easier positions and get luckier typically you can't possibly know everything all the time in chess so unless you have 100% knowledge of the game sure your not lucky or if its something like stockfish since its just chess there isn't anything like emotions involved so there isn't any outside factors but for people sure they get lucky sometimes

But luck also exists 'internal to the game too'.
One could try to 'downplay' both internal and external factors.
Or try to argue as to what is 'internal' and meaning of internal.
The point: chess as mathematical construct of rules can have no luck in it because rules don't care.
Next point: Would be to try to contrast 'element of chance in the playing out of rules'.
Could that exist? Yes. And does.
If two computers play out a game to a win or to a draw - the precise moves played and the times taken on each move are variables.
----------------------------
Some would say 'No. The computers are not subject to any element of chance.'
I say they are. And there will be 'distributions' of incidence of varous sequences of moves.
Do the computers both know at the beginning what the entire game will look like?
No. Nor will they know how much time taken for each move.
There's 'chance' there.
Is there 'luck'? Well the computers don't care.
But their programmers and operators might. Or do.
So the answer is yes. There's luck there.
Point: the game isn't solved.
If it was - then there would be an argument that there's neither luck nor what luck is a subset of - chance.
But it isn't. Isn't solved.

Guys stop writing essays on how to correct each other, it's not that deep ngl.

bro i look so sus rn i just had a massive losing streak now i have 8 wins in a row i look like one of those people that do you know what after a massive losing streak i just got lucky tho

thats crazy, I lost 10 in a row too, and I won 4 in a row, after. It happens! Low rated players are easy, we know you aren't cheating!

you mildly ruined the joke