Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

The luck to play with a human . There’s 1% chance to find a human real player in these servers there’s so much “trampas “ it’s all chesscom bots playing as users

It does get boring to be playing against engine users run by the platform yes it does

You’re wrong 😑 there are _more than we believe_ -and know- and we’re told about … we’re not told the whole story chesscom is hiding a list

The human-programmed error aspect isn't stochastic, but the genetic algorithms traditional engines use is. The source of randomness is the CPU clock. Which is a time measured in microseconds, or somewhere around there. However, the actual granularity you get is limited by the operating system, your typical operating system only reads the clock about 120 times a second. But some scientific computers have special hardware and OSs that allows them to generate these random seeds at much finer granularity. So computers have pseudo random number generation software, and it'll be initialized with a "random seed" taken from the clock whenever the program starts up... Whenever you press "go" on the chess engine. The random distribution is reproducible assuming you have the correct seed, but you never will get the same clock tic. But I can speak to this as an engineer. 
But of course the algorithm still reliably converges on a solution despite this mutation factor. 
I think the same is true for neural nets but I'm not entirely sure how that works, it's different though.

There's a website online random dot org where you can actually get random numbers drawn from this antenna some scientists have setup which detects microwave fluctuations in the atmosphere and converts this to a really high quality random number, sometimes I actually use these numbers for... experiments and so on. They're supposed to be higher quality than those you get from a computer. Which... I assume means the result of the "experiment" will be of a higher quality. But who knows.

No, most chess.com users are not bots, good lord people nowadays get so delusional...

The more randomness, the more variety in playstyles and unpredictability in moves.

You must've mistaken me for someone else as I haven't been arguing against anyone here for a while. Don't worry about it.

Playerafar here lays the groundwork for the real answer to the question of whether there is luck in chess or no. No there isn't.

As you know, chess as a game gives you all the information you need to achieve the best achievable result. What process the player decides to use trying to get there doesn't matter because if you fail, it's all down to the lack of skill of the player. Computer, human skill, wahtever, it doesn't matter because a failure to achieve the best outcome is never due to luck. You could blame the designer that they made the game too hard. But you can never blame luck.

What? Kotshmot clearly assumes the opposite of what I'm trying to say. He doesn't understand that the imperfect methods he desrcribes that are used to play chess don't result in any luck. The result in a failure to achieve what the game objective is.

Hi chatGPT

As you say yourself though the sources are external to chess. If we are going to agree that heart attacks are a part of chess, then there is no discussion to be had because everyone knows that would be luck. Why the discussion exists is because we should distinguish extrernal factors that aren't really a part of the game from internal things within the game rules. That is the only reason to have this discussion.

I think it's both because if you played good but you still lost, it's beacuse of skill, but of you're losing and your opponent blundered or didn't find the best move and won, it's because of luck.

There is luck within chess whether from external or internal factors.
I gave an example of a situation where there would be 'no luck'
and OS tried to invalidly argue that that would apply to all situations.
Was that a cherrypick or a strawman or a distortion by OS?
I guess it was all three.
-----------------------------
And yes chess is a game of perfect information which everybody knows.
Whereas poker is not.
But whoever might try to distort the meaning of 'perfect' and imply that perfect information means you get a free night's stay with Room Service at the Hilton.
This discussion has certain characteristics where people are actually arguing about things they not only co-know are true but that they agree on too.
There's a lot of attempts to stretch or narrow what 'luck' means and 'chess' and 'game' or even the word 'in'.
----------------------
Would people care about 'luck in chess'?
Balances between luck and skill and effort and happenstance and coincidence pervade life constantly.
People are constantly occupied with such things.
So of course they care.
Casinos are filled with people wanting luck. Lotteries are popular. The track and so on.
Workplaces are filled with people not wanting to depend on luck to get paid.
And I just made a word 'co-know'.
Maybe somebody will get very excited about that.
Predictably. He reads 100% of my posts while I skip 90% of his content.
-------------------------------
Answer to the forum subject question:
Is there luck in chess?
Yes. And everybody knows it. 'Absolutely everybody?' One year olds?
Is it fun to disagree with the obvious? Does that happen a lot?
Is the world round?
Yes. And everybody knows it.
But 2% of the population 'has fun' pretending not to and claiming Flat Earth and 'choosing to believe that' while knowing something else.
Idea: Belief contradicting knowledge (within the same mind) is quite common.

Ah yes, the argumentum ad populum.

doesn't mean people admit it.
Why and how does everybody know?
Because its so obvious.
Are there things where many people think they know but they're wrong?
Lots.
Try - 'the outer layer of U238 encasing a hydrogen bomb is part of the nuclear fuel of Hbombs. The so-called 'depleted uranium'. An Hbomb is a fission-fusion-fission bomb'
That's true. But many people reject that robotically - thinking its just a protective outer casing. After checking it on the net though - they usually concede.
Why do they get it wrong?
Simple. They don't know.
------------------
But people do know there's elements of luck in sports and games and contests.
However much they might 'believe' and 'claim' to the contrary.
-------------------
There's something called 'legitimate controversy' ... where both sides have legitimate arguments and continue to have them.
The death penalty for example.
But that's so linked to politics I can't pursue it here.
-----------------------
would chessplayers often defend arguments they know aren't valid?
Sure.
WIth a kind of 'odds' contest mentality.
'Hey I can spot you a rook and still win!!'

Maintaining objectivity.
Would mean that one could argue that there's 'no luck' in the mathematical construct of rules of chess.
But the word 'chess' itself was not meant to be a mathematical term.
And isn't.
One 'O' versus the other?
Well - Op has an advantage over Oc this time. Oc happens to be wrong.
Lol!
Regarding Kotshmot - he's one of the best posters.

Bro what are these images I'm reporting now.

Yeah at least this is not IB

The 'proportions' in the Angelina post?