Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

The ONLY luck in chess is choosing white or black from your opponent's closed fist.

did nobody read my thing

yes. but nobody cares. chess is not a democracy.

well can we MAKE it a democracy for like 5 minutes

We can. But again, it appears no one wants to except you. Just what do you think a vote will accomplish anyway?

Try out your "luck" against Titled players: https://boltchess.com/

and let me know haha

SuperStar wants to end this forum? And there's that 'we' again.
Nobody forced SuperStar to be here.
There are thousands of forums.
Does he not know how to use his scroll button?
If you encounter a post or posts you don't want to read - simply scroll past it.
You didn't know?
Hahahaahahah.

But you could be 'lucky' that you held out for a large number of moves.
Or that you were able to beat a Titled player if he gave you queen odds or a time spot on the clock. Or both.

Nope. Neither of those are examples of luck.

The result still matters. But that was never under contest.
We know the result matters.
But in games that are between very mismatched opponents there is still a luck factor.
And in such games the stronger player losing is less common than a draw.
In 1978 amateur David Levy famously managed to draw a game against Kasparov.
------------------------------------
Here's something from the net just now:
"chess rating systems (like Elo) can give us a rough idea. According to the Elo rating formula, a player with a 2200 rating is expected to win around 85-90% of the time against a B player in the 1400-1800 range, assuming both play optimally. The remaining 10-15% of the time could include draws or losses, which are generally more likely due to mistakes, time pressure, or other errors on the FM's part."
There's a flaw though. 'B' is 1600 to 1800. Not 1400 to 1800.
---------------------------
the point:
how is luck defined?
'you' here is general figurative 'you'.
If your opponent rated 400 points above you plays well below his usual level - while you play your usual 1800 - and you draw or win - then you got lucky.
Obviously.
You 'got lucky' that he played badly - for him - at that time.
(I can almost see the objections now.
No! - a pigeon flew into the playing hall and pecked the 2200!
No! - the 1800 was his boss! He had to throw the game!)
Chance versus design.
Reality: they coexist. They are not in 'alternative universes'.
Obviously.

"So is it your opinion that NO game that is decided by time violation is really a chess game?"

How could you possibly come to such conclusion from what I wrote. I'll give you a direct quote. of myself as a reminder.

"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."

Situations where we don't have two players anymore are situations where conditions of a chess game are no longer there, so the game is dismissed and handled administratively. It's the same thing when a player doesn't ever arrive, they start the clock and he runs out of time. Chess game never started of course. This of course has nothing to do with payer running out of time while at the board.

I'm positive I've made my position as clear as possible yet it's misrepresented. You can disagree no problem but don't try to twist my words.

Your psycho analysis is not needed. I'm answering posts here with my opinion that is backed with logic and reason. Thats it. I don't know who is "the guy" and I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth about what I'm apparently upset with (I showed this how?).

Mpaetz argument is clear and that's why I'm reponding to it. Whatever internal factors argument you refer to, I haven't seen a decent one so theres nothing to avoid. Feel free to reiterate and I'll address it.

The luck here lies in the probability of events, it's irrelevant that the event could have occurred over a prolonged time. If you toss a coin 10 times in a row and it lands on heads every time, and you were hoping for that outcome... you're lucky. If you toss a coin 100 times and it lands on heads at least 10 times... you aren't lucky, you would expect that.

Anyway -you make an artificial separation between the game of chess itself, and what you call "external" factors, however you go so far as to lump the chess player themselves in with these "external factors". As has been explained, the game of chess has no meaning or significance without players. Infact... you say chess is a game of perfect information, but information serves a function of informing... i.e. information presumes the perceptive syntax of some subject. for example... since humans can see in color they can extract information from colors in the environment. However, animals such as cats can't see in color, and cannot extract that information. Thus, the environment of colors is not one of "perfect" or "complete" or any information for cats, but it is for humans. And so, since there are something like 10^44ish unique chess positions - more than any subject could ever contemplate or fathom - what you describe as "perfect information" assumes an interpreter - a perfect game player - who doesn't exist, and will never exist.

For example... when you flip a coin - is the side it lands on a matter of luck? Well, by your argument it actually is not - because the subject physically flipped the coin and had complete control over it. But in reality - the reality we actually exist in - people do not have that level of physical / mental control over coin flipping to where they can be said to control the outcome. Thus... the outcome is attributed to chance, i.e. luck. (although I could make an argument that says they may have that level of control, but that'd be a major digression)

For another example... in chess when you don't know the outcome of a prolonged sequence of moves, and you choose a move at random, the outcome of the sequence is not within your conscious awareness... therefor the outcome is due to chance, in the same way as with a coin flip. 
If you're not willing to claim that coin flips are not chance events... the logic here is inescapable - there is luck in chess.

But you see, the very concept of luck relies on a subject - when you do away with that yes, you do away with the notion of luck. But you also cause your argument to not apply to any reality any subject exists within. So it's just... a meaningless argument.

Don't look at my username. Oh man you just did. Fun fact: You can't say /m/ with your mouth open. You just tried. I'm correct agian. You didn't see that I misspelled "again." You just checked. Don't look at my profile picture. You looked. You didn't notice I misspelled "look." You just realized I spelled it correctly. Copy and paste this comment as many times as possible. this was stolen from somebody else lol continue the chain.( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)(ʘᴥʘ

The moment you told me not to look at your username I stopped reading what you said, I did not complete the paragraph or even glance at it. I have zero idea what you just said. Right now I am intentionally reading nothing that you say, you are irrelevant.

Well being that were all here and exsist on this pale blue dot means it absolutely does, but I still give credit to god for earth.

Answering the first paragraph. A coin flip is a probabilistic event and studying chess is a conscious effort. This shows not understanding the argument. The original argument was that when a conscious effort happens to be helpful in what occurs on the board it is a lucky event. But if this is the case not only what you studied just before the game matching should be considered luck dependant but also the whole history of studying because all of it will be helpful in varying amounts depending on what happens on the board in various occasions. This of course doesn't make sense. Building knowldege and understanding is a conscious, long term effort. At any point it turns out to be helpful is result of your effort, not luck. You didn't address this.

We can say that the game doesn't have to care if the player is incapable. It simply assigns a task and if you fail it is a matter of skill not luck. You can complain that the mission is impossible but you cannot say that it has something to do with luck. Skill is the only way to interpret this information and more information and understanding will lead to better results.

The coinflip is a purposeful random mechanism. Us humans use it on purpose to not be able to predict the result. So it is our decision not to try and use skill but to have a game mechanic that produces random results. If we had the ability and will to learn to predict it with varying accuracy (like in chess) the fundamentals would change.

The separation of external and internal factors in chess is not artificial. There are properties that belong in chess and those that don't belong. The game mechanics and rules belong, an elephant stomping the player doesn't belong. You can think of it like this: Whatever is not necessary for a game of chess doesn't belong. It can be played on any platform or in ones mind, it's not platform dependant (power outages). It can be played by an AI, robot, god that may or may not exist, it's not dependant on humans (or heart attacks).

Now that's actually a good post by ibrust.
And Octo constantly tries to instruct people what to say while he ignores the realities of what is called 'chess'.
He is arguing that the 'game itself' doesn't care.
Water is wet too. So what?
We already know that 'a game of something' can't care about something nor can the rules of something 'care' either. In any sport or contest with rules.
But that doesn't mean the players are 'removed'.
They are part of chess. No players - no chess.
And players and their play and the game itself are subject to chance.
------------------------
Why? How?
Because chess is not solved!
It is filled with unknowns!
The information in front of the players about the position is 'perfect information' unlike in poker ... but that doesn't mean each game itself is not subject to chance and therefore luck.
'It' and 'they' are both subject to chance and luck.
Another group of variables filled with unknowns is knowledge/lack of knowledge by each of the players as to their opponents,
and how their opponent will react to whatever.
-------------------------
Therefore - Octo really doesn't have a point.
He may as well be trying to argue that since 1 + 1 = 2 that 2 + 2 therefore equals zero.
And 'the Guy's' obsession with intelligence levels is starting to rub off on Octo.
Plus Octo is now engaging in the long looped exchanges that he was complaining about just a few days ago.

----------------
Also notable about ibrust in that post is that he didn't obsess over intelligence levels. Thereby distancing himself from 'the Guy'.
Why do I often use that term?
Because referring to him by his actual name 'feeds' him.
And its funny to me when he openly recognizes his behaviour as his when I talk about that!
😎

@playerafar

Me saying your psycho analysis is not needed doesn't mean I instruct you not to do it. Go ahead! I'm just saying it is not necessary for this topic and pretty much it's good for nothing.