Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

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.

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.