Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

You're arguing semantics, but your statement is essentially the same. The point stands. Why should the games be suspended, in your estimation?

It's no wonder you are not a fan of the scientific method.

External "issues" invalidate the results of a clean room experiment. and so too do they mar games of chess. If someone runs into your table at the coffee shop and knocks the whole board over, is that a valid game outcome? Win, lose, draw, or indefinite suspension via violent upheaval...these are the four possible outcomes of a logical game of chess?

Stockfish does not consider all moves possible. Google and read up on how chess engines work. Specifically, look for "tree pruning". Engines will chop entire branches of moves without full consideration.

beef is crazy rn

That's your imagination at work. Read the posts without assuming tone.

I see a lot of reasoning about why you do this or that, but not a lot of reasoning that can actually address the points made. I realize you had just begged off the topic for a while when I happened to start reading this thread and respond in order, so, feel free to respond down the road.

tho you did accidentally describe chance more then luck ... luck involve stuff like phycological factors (example your lucky your opponent is tilting )

Luck is a purely subjective perception applied to objective matters, usually chance/probability. Game designers introduce or remove various "luck" mechanics to games in order to create or diminish drama, interest, complexity, etc.

Candyland is pure "luck". There's no decisions you can make or strategy you can take that will affect the random outcome. Chess, however, has evolved the way it has and lasted as long as it has because it removes "luck" to the other extreme, and there are lots of people that are drawn to games that are not capricious.

Two perfect players drawing the game every time without uncertainty doesn't prove that there is no luck in chess. From the perspective of the perfect player there should be no uncertainty of outcome against any opposition. That's not the case, actually there is uncertaintly of outcome against all imperfect opposition starting from 0 skill. If perfect play from one side doesn't guarantee urcertainty, we can't say there is no luck in chess.

Additionally "luck in chess" should include all possible luck regardless of skill level of the players. That means even proving that a perfect player can guarantee an outcome against any opposition doesn't prove there is no luck in chess. Showing that a higher skill level guarantees an outcome against lower skill level would objectively prove there is no luck in chess, but it's been demonstrated already that's not the case.

"Two perfect players drawing the game every time without uncertainty doesn't prove that there is no luck in chess."

Meanwhile, Magnus and Ian

i heard that stockfish drew almost everygame in a bullet match

actually?

i dunno but stockfish vs stockfish is ussualy a draw no ? even if it doesn't know the best moves

Your last statement does not follow. Two imperfect human players cannot conclusively prove anything in this case no matter the disparity in their skill level because their range of play is too ridiculously low. Let me be clear here, because humans are generally conceited by nature about their abilities...the difference between a 5 year old that just learned to move and Magnus Carlsen still pales in comparison to the vast gulf between Carlsen and perfect play. Engines will destroy Carlsen, but are only a sliver better from that perspective.

That's remarkably literal. I'm talking about your underlying assumption that an external event should mean that the right course of action is to suspend play, as if that event is not part of the game of chess and needs to be considered and dealt with separately...

Literal detail again. Would it be it possible for you to stop taking this as an attack on your actions at the now-long-over-if-it-even-occurred event and just answer it in the context of the argument it makes against external events being part of the supposed "luck" in chess?

Yes, chess would be "clean" and clear and run like clockwork if it wasn't for those pesky chessplayers intruding on it. Without players there wouldn't be a contest. You have to accept some uncertainties if you design a game involving imperfect competitors.

There are adjournments in chess.

Many people do see chess as a contest and a competition, yes. That is less important to me than chess as a communal artform, with both players trying to build something in their struggle to play well. Not to win...to play well. Winning is a symptom of playing well. That's why when I have played NMs/FMs in the past, I have cheerily played them as many games as I can, losing them all, sometimes dozens of 10 minute games at a sitting. Because the game quality is just better (not to mention learning a lot from them).

Here's the main difference...a lot of people (Fischer being perhaps the most famous) love to win and their joy is to "break" the opponent. The earlier the blunder, the more complete the collapse, the better they like it. Not me. That first blunder from either sides spoils the game...the bigger the blunder, the less memorable and worthwhile the individual game. I would cherish a boring draw well played with a CM more than a win over Carlsen if it were because Carlsen blundered badly.

You have to accept some uncertainties if you design a game involving imperfect competitors.

It's the opposite from a design perspective. The absolute certainty of imperfect competitors means you need to ensure that the game itself does not have any uncertainties. That goal being strived for is why chess survives the centuries.

Not sure how that addresses the theoretical discussion we were having. I agree that if you want to keep the discussion at a technical level, reliably demonstrating something by human play would be difficult, maybe that's close to what you meant.

Easiest way to explore theoretical role of luck in my opinion would be to look at the theoretical extremes, such as perfect play or "maximum skill" and "the least possible skill", which would be knowing how the pieces move but nothing beyond that, so a random move generator. By doing this I can demonstrate that theoretically even the widest skill gap possible doesn't nullify uncertainty, or in another words we can't guarantee an outcome. We can tell that uncertainty clearly gets reduced as skill gap grows, but it will never hit zero. It would work the opposite way as well - smaller skill gap -> more uncertainty. I think it's worth noting that uncertainty of outcome doesn't necessarily have to mean the outcome of a game, allthough that's the simplest application to think of, but it applies to outcome of individual moves as well.

Edit. Skill gap as in difference in skill levels of the players.