Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Might have luck, might not

I completely agree.

As expected - some trying to cherrypick external factors in order to pretend there's no internal factors subject to chance and luck.
With emphasis on 'pretend'.

A very efficient pair of posts!
Translation?
'To blazes with objectivity! Lets simplify!'

There is no luck in chess.

Cherry pick? That's what your fellow luck believer decided to argue, external factors. Blame him.

Regarding 'chess' and 'rules of chess' - they are very different.
If 'chess' is defined as 'chess games with clocks' that looks like a very central definition.
Although the dictionary (yes I want to guess) probably defines it as something like 'popular game played with a board consisting of 64 squares in an 8x8 arrangement that starts with 32 pieces with varying power set on the same initial squares in every game. Played between two opponents taking turns to move their pieces which are designated by color'
Yes that could probably be shortened without leaving out any of the details.

He's not my fellow. More like your's. But we'll see.
He is not cherrypicking as badly as you - if he is at all on this one.
But I skip most of his posting.
--------------------------
Chance and luck are part of many things.
They refer to realities of what happens.
They are not 'beliefs'.

But the definition of chess has to be something. If we start including everything in the definition of chess that can affect a game from the outside, that would be one heck of a mess. Concept of chess and its fundamentals are based on the rules and game mechanics, not some platform someone happens to boot it up on.

There are many ways victory/defeat in a game of chess can be decided regardless of what moves are made on the board. A player might be caught consulting Stockfish on their smartphone, a player might assault a TD and be removed from the venue, an IM might be discovered using another players identity to enter the "under 1800" section of a tournament to win significant prize money, a player might be a wanted felon and get arrested at the board, whatever. In most of these cases the fault lies with the player; it is their own actions that earn them the defeat, so they can't complain about their "bad luck".

The most common cause of victory/defeat regardless of the position on the board is loss on time. All players have agreed to abide by the tournament's rules concerning timely play. Most often this is the player's own responsibility. If a player cannot finish the game within the time limits due to an appendicitis attack at the board or computer/phone disconnection the "official" result is failure to complete the game within the prescribed time limit. It is only in these rare instances that I consider luck to have played a part, particularly if the affected player had a winning position at the time.

Yes and these unusual events I believe I addressed in my previous post. Whether it is the players own actions or some random occurence that disrupts the game, in those situations the conditions of a chess game are not fulfilled as we don't have two players anymore. If result cannot be decided via means of chess then they have to resolve the situation some otherway, likely award the win to the remaining player. It is unfortunate and bad luck if you will, but again there is no luck in chess. It's unlucky that you couldn't participate in a chess game, or one of full length anyway. Two different things.

Yes

So is it your opinion that NO game that is decided by time violation is really a chess game? When the computer connection is broken that player loses on time. When a player is unable to finish a game otb because they leave the tournament hall they will lose on time. (This once happened to me at a local chess club when my opponent's--a physician--pager went off, he left the hall to rush to an emergency call, and I got the time forfeit.) In such cases "the conditions of a chess game" WERE fulfilled. What chess skills did the other player use to obtain the victory?

Yes, this is something unusual. Yes, it is something the creators of the game did not take into account. I fail to see how winning/losing a chess game and the concomitant gain/loss of ratings, prize money, and/or achievement of norms isn't really part of chess.

I find myself considering commenting, but then I remember that Optimissed has explained this clearly so many times... there's really nothing to add, but seeing as the explanations did not sink in... I can't see what my commenting could achieve other than me pissing myself off. 
At some point you have to be at peace with the masses being mindless dunces, I suppose. So that you don't drive yourself crazy.

Externals and internals both apply chance and luck in the game -
and I expected months ago that certain persons would try to cherrypick some of the externals to try to knock out everything else.
And sure enough.
Its like it was 'scripted'.
------------------------------
A long time ago it seemed to me that @ibrust and the Guy were the same person or may as well be - but somebody provided some logical evidence to indicate they're not - on the first part.
Which way will Octo go?
He's 'upset' with the Guy for disagreeing with him ...
but the three of them seem to have similiar mindsets regarding silly non-existent authority they don't have.
But maybe Octo is a cut better.

Those who value reason submit to it regardless of who it comes from. Hence reason (and intelligence) is a basis for authority. This ability to reason is part of what separates some of us from the chimpanzees.

You should thank Opti for taking the time to explain to you that luck is a factor in chess.... you obviously learned something from the explanation, seeing as you've done a 180.

Learning is deeply beneficial for you. Teaching is an act of charity.

Again - I'll skip reading the posts just now by ibrust and 'the Guy' - whether they're the same person or not.
Several reasons for doing so - including so as to not 'feed' them..
In situations like this - its good to attend to posts made by better posters than them.

Okay so if you think there is luck in chess say yes (JUST YES! NO ESSAYS!) and if you think there isn't then say no. (AGAIN JUST NO!). Then after that I'll tally up the votes and majority wins and we can finally end this forum.

'fail'?
I would say @mpaetz 'succeeds' there.
Issue: will those who wish to insist that there's no luck in chess 'persuade' others who know there is - to so think?
They could try to sell 'flat earth' too.
-------------------------
The answer looks like No.
But positions are made known.
Including when its just a kind of an attempt at arbitrary insistency.
People know there's elements of chance and luck in competitive games and sports and in other forms of contest too.
Chess isn't in some kind of 'holy temple' compared to other competitions.
Luck constantly figures.
------------------------------
Novak Djokovic had to withdraw from his match with Zverev just a few hours ago.
Just too much pain.
Does that mean that Zverev won by 'pure skill'?
Of course not.
The audience booed Novak - but Zverev defended his opponent.
In the other semifinal - Brian Shelton lost to the world #1 - Sinner.
Sinner outplays his opponents. Especially on hard courts.
Its obvious.
Does that mean there's never elements of luck in his victories?
No.
Chess is not solved. There's much unknown in the game.
Is tennis 'solved'?
No.
But its harder to apply terms like solved and unsolved.
To that game.