Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Yes. Those images.

Wow this forum is 14 years old!
That post from Ziryab is from 2011.
And its a good post too!

While I feel it is understandable how this example would seem like it represents luck but once we break this down in my opinion the argument doesn't hold water. Heres why.

Building your knowledge base for chess is a part of the process of acquiring and developing your skill. If we would consider the random book your read before the game as luck, consequently we would now have to consider every bit of knowledge you have adapted along the way in one way or another as luck, and every bit of knowledge you didn't happen to acquire as "unluck" or whatever you wanna call it. See, if that one book was lucky then what about the book last week? Or last year? No! It is all part of the process of building up your knowldege which is a part of your chess skill. If it happened to be just before the game it's no different compared to knowledge you acquired a year ago. A long process you know.

Secondly. What should be considered as luck in chess happens during the game and not before or after. If you were born intelligent it is not "luck in chess".

And @playerafar dont be there all mighty deciding whos objectively right here! You aint got the power to do that. We are having a friendly collective conversation here and its not decided whos wrong or right.

@ Octopus you seem to be deciding who's wrong.
News flash: You can try and instruct people what to say but your instructions can be ignored.
My posts bother you. They interfere with your points.
Do you intend to be fragile and delicate on an ongoing basis?
I think you know you're wrong in your points but your idea is that you can 'spot a rook' and verbally win anyway.
But you won't. Neither by complaining nor 'instructing'.
And your argument of 'born intelligent' is shallow and does not exclude luck.

@ Octopus - if you get annoyed because you know somebody is right - then mis-labelling their posts isn't a good way to go.
You're not thinking it through. Which chess could train you to do.
But so often - it doesn't work that way for chessplayers.
The skills in chess 'don't carry over'. A lot of the time.
Hahaahaah.
-----------------------------
And that's assuming whatever player is actually 'thinking it through' in his chess also.
I've seen in the Tactics Puzzles how those puzzles constantly beat players by them being misled by the positions and blundering instead of viewing them objectively.
Its not easy to be very objective - about a lot of things.
-----------------------------
Like underpromotion in the chess puzzles.
So many players think they've solved it - they've got all their moves right so far -
and then Wham! they finish with Q-promote. Instead of the correct. Underpromote.
Fail. The problem ends up with a very low Pass Rate.
But ironically still has a low rating too - apparently because so many players have got most of the moves right. The puzzles have their own special rating system it seems.

@Optimissed

Fair enough man. My opinion isn't mainstream but it is one I feel is right. None of us should be here this much.

@Playerafar

I suck at chess so if I'm wrong my chess ability seems to be carrying over just fine. I should say I don't think thats the case here tho. You label my points as shallow yet I don't see a counter point. That's okay but makes a debate that much harder to be had.

No, there isn't.

You don't like the counter points presented to you.
So you therefore don't intend to 'see' anything. And would rather 'label' instead.
If your intention of not seeing applies to your chess too - then yes you'll continue with being poor at chess - which you just admitted to.
But that's okay. Be poor at chess.
That is not a problemo for anybody including yourself probably.
And also - continue to 'don't see'. Again - no problemo.
I don't label. You've already admitted you don't see.

you just used it. You didn't have much luck there.

@playerafar

Not poor enough not to beat your butt right now at chess. See, only I can call myself poor or else it's challenge words.

You see? (he doesn't)
You've got the 'I can spot you a rook and still win' mindset.
And again you're trying to 'give instructions'.
(thinking maybe Octo when he loses at chess wants a rematch - perhaps one of those very sore when his opponent refuses.)
Octo complained about others arguing.
Was it jealousy?

See you later Octo. Have a good day. I give you permission.

It depends on whether or not you consider actually playing the game to be "chess". If not, then game results and player ratings are meaningless. The concept of skill in chessplay is all about the players manipulating the pieces to achieve a desired result. That the result may be determined by factors other than the rules for piece movement opens the door to the possibility that luck can play a part.

Just messing with you there mate, it was a joke. I do suck at chess.

Moving the pieces as in playing has to be a part of chess of course. Only I have to propose the distiction between luck that is a property of the specific player or their conditions and luck in the game of chess itself. What it means is that the luck that is a part of chess has to be valid no matter who the player is. We rule out heart attack - it is a property of a human player, not chess. The way I see it is that skill is the only thing that matters when moves are being made and the better skilled player always wins. Expect for the heart attack but that we ruled out already.

Your opinion is mainstream, actually. That's why when you Google or ask ChatGPT "what are some games without luck?" chess is the most commonly given answer.

The level of skill, knowledge of particular openings, ability to concentrate intently for long periods, previous experience of similar positions, familiarity with endgame technique and the like are "a property of a human player". So these things are "not chess"?

If "the better skilled player always wins" then Vlatko Kovacevic, who completely outplayed Bobby Fisher in their only meeting, was clearly better skilled. And Tigran Petrosian proved himself to be better skilled than Kovacevic, routinely beating him. So of course Petrosian easily overwhelmed Fischer in their candidates match.

You postulate skill as "the only thing that matters" in victory/defeat. You admit that victory/defeat is an essential part of the game. The player whose opponent has a stroke at the board is therefore displaying superior chess skill? The player whose internet connection fails during an online game is displaying inferior chess skill? There are rare instances where luck, not skill, determines the results of a chess game. That doesn't make chess a game of chance, only acknowledges that putting the ideal theory of chess into the reality of actual competition can yield results outside the ideal conception.

Note--In English grammar it is usual to capitalize the W in the royal plural, as when the ultimate authority figure speaks for everyone else--"that We ruled out", meaning that you have decided the issue and cannot be contradicted.

Those things are characteristics of an individual. Chess doesn't care in which form your ability comes in. The ability that results in better moves wins.

A game of chess can be affected by factors internal and external to chess. Internal factors are a part of chess rules. External ones happen in life outside of chess. An elephant can ruin a chess game but there are no elephants in chess.

The capital W was used in the beginning of a sentence, no royalty to it.

Interesting, chatGPT presumably understands the game theory/design context is most relevant for chess. Allthough it might change it's mind depending on how you ask.

It's amazing this debate has gone on as long as it has, it's an open/closed case which has been explained repeatedly.

There's this mistique around the new chat AIs but it's I think hype-based and mostly unfounded. These days google has a new AI programming assistant that's digested millions of stackoverflow comments. It will give you programming advice on most anything, and code snippets... I'm an engineer so I'm googling these things all day, and I see this advice at the top of google. I never trust it further than I can verify it myself... It's an amazing technology but it's not at the level of superhuman intelligence yet, or even close, it's quite dumb at times. Sometimes it contradicts itself when you ask it the same question twice, or in two different ways... it's given me wrong advice on programming many times. Not too surprising when it's digesting vast swaths of information from human sources.
If you need technical information it's a great resource. But if you want an answer to something opinion-based... or which requires independent reasoning, it can be very duncey.

What's wring with my opinion? Is there some invalidity from what I said? Two downvotes fo a decent opinion about "Is there luck in chess?". But it's the internet, nobody cares about anyone's opinion.