Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

That's good she's dead. I hope you will get same disease too.

I do all puzzles both on this site and other sites all most daily with a rating here around / just under 2000. Have read one basic tactical book and bits and pieces of a couple more. My rating here is around 1000, rapid 30-60 minute games. Do you think it worth while for me to look into this book?

Yes.

I was high 1400s USCF when David Weinstock, whom I had just met--he was a vendor at a chess tournament where I was playing--recommended this book. I thanked him, but mentally dismissed the suggestion. "I know how to checkmate," I thought. I had spent a great many hours twenty years earlier learning elementary checkmates.

Two or three years later when I saw the book in a bookstore, I looked at it. It was far different than I imagined. I bought it, read part and skimmed the rest. My game immediately improved and I started playing new lines and checkmating my opponents in new ways.

A few months ago, I bought the Kindle edition of the newish algebraic edition of the book (my print copy is the 1953 translation with English descriptive), which was touted as a better translation. I am working my way through the book, studying every single move. Every single variation. I am entering all the positions and games, and a selection of the annotations into a database. 

Database work from a couple of days ago:

Inquiry into the history of the pattern:

http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2008/09/pillsburys-mate.html

Thank you,

I’d rather be lucky than good any day.

 Hey I’ve recently won a rollable chess board by playing a 2 min puzzle, I would count that as luck on my side. win your own board now at-http://surl.li/aqpss

I consider luck to be independant of our skills and attitudes... but the proper utilization of a lucky break is heavily dependant on our skills and attitudes.

I can't count the number of times when I've seen a player fail to exploit an unexpected chance because they were already mentally resigned to losing, and were not alert to the opportunity presented by a sudden shift in fortune.

^^^^
This

And thank god for stalemate.

I was busted in this game, so played 52.Kh4.

Black then erred with 52...Kc4. The game finished 53.Ra8 Kb4 54.Rxa5 Kxa5. If the king does not take the rook, my rook sweeps across the fifth rank and the position is still a technical draw.

luck is what we call it when something was beyond our perception and then materialized at a seemingly right moment when we needed it the most. 

    Everyone makes mistakes in chess, even world champions. Luck would be when you play yourself into a losing position against an opponent that would see and exploit your weakness 95% of the time but your game happens to be that one in twenty where they miss it. Or chess luck could be getting paired in a crucial game with someone you beat most of the time rather that a equally-rated player who usually beats you. Of course there's always the chance you could get a win in a lost position should the other player suddenly get sick or have to deal with some emergency.

You are mainly lucky when your opponent is blind.

     Rolling dice to see what piece you could move was a variant in medieval Europe, considered appropriate for ladies and children. "Real men" didn't play that way. Of course today there is no element of chance in the play but you can get lucky in the ways I mentioned. Once long ago I was playing in a tournament in a hotel. I was losing and was nearly ready to resign. A fire broke out in the kitchen next to the hall where we were playing, everybody exited, the firemen came through, knocking over tables and spraying fire retardant all over. The tournament director decided that it was impossible to resume the games (lost or damaged scoresheets, etc.) so we replayed the round the next morning. This time I won and went on to finish well enough to win enough prize money to get back my entry fee and gas money. If that's not luck in chess, what is?

     My point was that such things are the only kinds of luck that there are in chess.

     What part of "there is no element of chance in the play" did you not understand? Bottom line: I won a chess game I should have lost through sheer luck. And chess is part of life (or as Bobby Fischer said "chess is life") so it can be affected by luck, as you admit.

good luck you guys with the pissing content

     You realize we agree about the basics here and are just quibbling over semantics. You could also say there is no hard work involved "in" GM games as all they do is sit at a table and shuffle the pieces around, but the players wouldn't be in a GM tournament without years of hard work. There is no element of chance in the play of the game, but should you pick up a piece and reach to put it on a square where it will checkmate your opponent, only to have a stroke and be rushed to the hospital (bad luck for you,), thereby forfeiting and getting a loss, it is indisputable that luck was involved in the outcome of that game of chess. All human endeavors contain some bit of luck, as we can never fulfill our intentions perfectly.

It isn't a matter of opinion. Luck/randomness/entropy/chance is inherent in everything we do. Why do you think Fischer wanted the world championship to last more games? It's because as the number of trials increase, the role of randomness decreases. Which presupposes that there is luck to begin with.

As has been pointed out many times, in any given position a player must make a move.  There is a finite number of legal moves any position, say 50 for simplicity. Then for any one move, there is a 1/50 chance for anybody, regardless of their skill, to make the "correct" move in the position. Again for simplicity, if we assume independence between move selections (which we know is not true; chess masters who make 10 consecutive "correct" moves are probably more likely to select a "correct" 11th move), then the probability of selecting two straight "correct" moves is (1/50)^2, the probability of selecting three straight "correct" moves is (1/50)^3,  etc.

The above sketches a simplistic mechanism to evaluate the presence of skill in an activity-- if after a large number of trials, one can reliably improve upon the randomness inherent in the activity, then the activity itself is skill-based with elements of luck. Think lawyers who try cases, chess players who select moves, surgeons who repair tears.  An experienced attorney and John Doe both might lose a trial. But that doesn't their skill is equal, as would become clear after sufficient cases. Meanwhile, if one can't reliably improve upon the randomness inherent in the activity after a large number of trials, then the activity itself is luck-based. Think rolling dice, selecting cards from a deck, picking a lottery ticket. One person might win the lottery after playing it once and one person might lose for 20 years straight. But that doesn't mean the person who won is more skillful at playing the lottery, as would become clear after more times playing the lottery.

I do not mean to this in a negative way, but it is clear that those arguing against randomness must come from a non-technical background. This article does a nice job addressing the reality of randomness in an intuitive way for such an audience: https://towardsdatascience.com/randomness-in-sport-6e60c6132838 

I would think so yes. Probably just luck in your opponent missing a good move. 

𝒽ℯ𝓁𝓁ℴ, 𝒽𝒶𝓅𝓅𝓎 𝓃ℯ𝓌 𝓎ℯ𝒶𝓇 𝓉ℴ 𝒶𝓁𝓁 ℴ𝒻 𝓎ℴ𝓊, ℐ𝓂 𝓈ℴ ℊ𝓁𝒶𝒹 , 𝒯𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝒾 ℊℴ𝓉 𝒷ℯ𝒶𝓉ℯ𝓃 𝒶𝓌𝒽𝒾𝓁ℯ 𝒶ℊℴ. 𝒜𝓃𝒹 𝒾𝒶𝓂 𝓈ℴ ℊ𝓁𝒶𝒹, 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝒶𝓁𝓁 𝓉𝒽𝓇𝓊 𝓉𝒽ℯ𝓈ℯ 𝓎ℯ𝒶𝓇𝓏, ℐ𝓂 𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝓀𝒾𝒸𝓀𝒾𝓃ℊ, 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝒾 𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝒸𝒶𝓇𝓇𝓎 𝓉𝒽ℯ 𝒷𝓊𝓇𝒹ℯ𝓃𝓈, 𝒶 𝓁ℯ𝒻𝓉 ℴ𝓋ℯ𝓇𝓈 𝒻𝓇ℴ𝓂 𝓂𝓎 𝓁𝒶𝓉ℯ 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝓉𝓃ℯ𝓇 , 𝒜𝓃𝓃𝒶. 𝒾𝒶𝓂 ℊ𝓁𝒶𝒹 , 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓃ℴ𝓌 ,𝒾𝒶𝓂 𝓈ℴ 𝓇ℯ𝒶𝒹𝓎 𝓉ℴ 𝒸𝒶𝓈𝓉 𝒾𝓉 𝒶𝓀𝓀 𝒶𝓌𝒶𝓎 ...𝒯ℴ 𝒻ℴ𝓇ℊℯ𝓉 𝓉𝒽ℯ 𝓂ℯ𝓂ℴ𝓇𝒾ℯ𝓈 𝓁ℯ𝒻𝓉 𝒾𝓃 𝓂ℯ. ,𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓃ℴ𝓌 𝒾 𝒹ℴ𝓃𝓉 𝓃ℯℯ𝒹 𝓉ℴ 𝒸ℴ𝓂𝓅ℯ𝓃𝓈𝒶𝓉ℯ 𝒷𝓎 𝓅𝓁𝒶𝓎𝒾𝓃ℊ 𝒸𝒽ℯ𝓈𝓈 ...𝒩ℴ𝓌 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝒾 𝒽𝒶𝓋ℯ 𝒻ℴ𝓊𝓃𝒹 𝓂𝓎 𝒯𝓇𝓊ℯ ℋℯ𝒶𝓇𝓉 𝒾𝓃 𝓎ℴ𝓊. 𝓎ℴ𝓊 𝒽𝒶𝓋ℯ 𝓂𝒶𝒹ℯ 𝓂ℯ 𝓁ℴ𝓋ℯ 𝒶ℊ𝒶𝒾𝓃....  𝓁ℴ𝒷ℴ𝓃ℊ 𝒾𝓈 𝒶𝓁𝓁 𝒾 𝓌𝒶𝓃𝓉ℯ𝒹, -ℱ𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓁𝓎, ℱ𝓇𝒾ℯ𝓃𝒹𝓈 , 𝒰𝓃𝒻ℴ𝓇ℊℯ𝓉𝓉𝒶𝒷𝓁ℯ ℯ𝓋ℯ𝓃𝓉𝓈., 𝓇ℯ𝓆𝓊𝒾𝓇ℯ𝓈  𝒽ℯ𝒶𝓇𝓉 𝒾𝓉𝓈ℯ𝓁𝒻. .  ℒ𝓊𝒸𝓀 𝒾𝓈 𝓌ℯ𝓇 𝓌ℯ ℱ𝒾𝓃𝒹 𝓌𝒽ℯ𝓃 𝓈ℴ𝓂ℯ 𝒸𝒾𝓇𝒸𝓊𝓂𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓃𝒸ℯ𝓈 ℱℯ𝓁𝓁 ℴ𝓃 𝒶 𝒷𝒶𝒹 𝒽𝒶𝓃𝒹.  :-) , ℒ𝒾𝓀ℯ 𝒸𝒽ℯ𝓈𝓈, 𝒞𝒽ℯ𝓈𝓈 𝒾𝓈 𝒶𝓁𝓌𝒶𝓎𝓈 𝒸𝓁𝒶𝓇𝓀, 𝒯𝒽ℴ 𝒾𝓉 𝓁𝒾𝓃ℊℯ𝓇𝓈 𝒾𝓃 𝓈ℴ𝓂ℯ 𝒽ℯ𝒶𝓇𝓉𝓈, 𝒮ℴ𝓂ℯ 𝒞𝓊𝓇𝓈ℯ 𝒽𝒾𝓂 𝒶𝓌𝒶𝓎, 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓈ℴ𝓂ℯ.𝒽𝒶𝓋ℯ 𝒻ℴ𝓇𝓇ℊℴ𝓉𝓉ℯ𝓃. .  𝒾 𝓃ℯ𝓋ℯ𝓇 ℛℯ𝓁𝓎 ℴ𝓃 ℴ𝓉𝒽ℯ𝓇𝓈 𝓁𝓊𝒸𝓀, ℐ𝓃𝓈𝓉ℯ𝒶𝒹..ℐ 𝓂𝒶𝓀ℯ ℳ𝓎 ℴ𝓌𝓃 𝓇ℴ𝒶𝒹 ,𝒯ℴ 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝒸ℯℯ𝒹, 𝒯ℴ ℴ𝓋ℯ𝓇𝒸ℴ𝓂ℯ, 𝒯ℴ 𝒮𝓊𝓇𝓂ℴ𝓊𝓃𝓉 , 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒻ℴ𝓇 𝓂𝓎 𝒱𝒾𝒸𝓉ℴ𝓇𝓎!   𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓃𝓀 𝓎ℴ𝓊 𝒽𝒶𝓋ℯ 𝒶 𝒷𝓁ℯ𝓈𝓈ℯ𝒹 𝓃ℯ𝓌 𝓎ℯ𝒶𝓇 , ℯ𝓋ℯ𝓇𝓎ℴ𝓃ℯ, 𝓉ℴ 𝒶𝓁𝓁 ℴ𝒻 𝓉𝒽ℯ 𝓌ℴℴ𝒹 𝓅𝓊𝓈𝒽ℯ𝓇𝓈,... 𝒢ℴ𝒹 𝒷𝓁ℯ𝓈𝓈 𝓎ℴ𝓊 ,𝓊𝓈 𝒶𝓁𝓁..   𝒹ℴ 𝒾 𝒽𝒶𝓋ℯ 𝓉ℴ 𝓅𝓁𝒶𝓎 /𝒸ℴ𝓂𝓅ℯ𝓉ℯ 𝒶𝓂ℴ𝓃ℊ 𝓉𝒽ℯ ℊ𝓇ℯ𝒶𝓉ℯ𝓈𝓉, ? 𝒲𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝒹ℴ 𝓎ℴ𝓊 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃𝓀 , 𝓂𝓎 𝒹ℯ𝒶𝓇𝓁𝒾𝓃ℊ ℯ𝓂𝓂𝒶? 

     If you and blitzer GMs think playing chess is hard work you should spend a 60-hour workweek toting bricks on a construction site or harvesting tomatoes in California's central valley. The idea that the players can't grab a drink or bite to eat between games is absurd beyond belief. And of course these top pros don't work themselves up into an hours-long adrenaline-fueled frenzy. Staying calm and focused is one of their talents.

     You have admitted that there is luck in life. Chess is part of life. Even though there is no element of chance in the rules of play, outside factors can and sometimes do affect the results of games, tournaments and matches.

     I defy you to find anything I have ever written that compares chess unfavorably to other board games. Also, there are many other board games where there is no element of chance in the rules. Think of Go, Shogi, checkers (draughts and Chinese), Diplomacy, even tic-tac-toe. Please limit your shameful comments to something I actually said.

     You claim to hate the chess community and you don't want to associate with us. lol You spend hours every day playing chess and commenting relentlessly on chess.com forums. And as for society's opinion of chess, indifference and ignorance sums it up--just like yourself six months ago.

     Finally, saying chess professionals don't make money is absurd. A professional IS someone who makes their living off that enterprise. Sure, everyone wishes that their profession paid better, but how does that make things especially hard for chess players? If there is an overabundance of lawyers, medieval-history researchers, plumbers, rappers, kumquat growers, buggywhip makers, or any other occupation than the public is willing to spend money on, not everyone who wishes to make a living in that field will be able to do so.