Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

It might be

I'll ignore the Guy's post too. Not read it. For now.
He also wants a 'long exchange'.
Valuable to not 'feed' him.

That sounds honest.

Yes

Somebody trying to give instructions again?
Constantly annoyed when people don't recognize his non-existent imaginary 'authority'?
He's apparently doomed to such pain for the rest of his life.
But is masochistic and 'loves to hate it'.
Month in month out. Including during the months of righteous mutes handed to him by chess.com - year in year out.

Luck in chess.
Its obviously there.
On multiple counts.
Will people trying to cherrypick on external factors be the only main theme of the discussion?
No. Many people here continue to affirm the obvious presence of luck in chess.
Its present in any contest anywhere - if it really is a contest.
Always present. But with a lot of variation.

Somebody looking for verbal chess again.
Deluding himself that I'm reading his posts.
People who troll nearly always are in denial when I tell them I skipped reading their post. Why? Because a main feature of trolling is dishonesty.
They constantly are dishonest - internally. (and externally) - so they have a hard time accepting it when others express themselves honestly.
But the best treatment of their trolling is usuallly to just post around it.
---------------------------------
Luck in sports and games is well known.
Chess has no 'exemption' from it.
What about weightlifting?
regarding reaching a high level in any sport or game -
is basically about work and natural skill and acquired skill.
At least one of those has a big luck factor though - within it.
But that's reaching a high level - not the actual competition.
There's a difference.
But even there there's luck too.
The luck of having little or no barriers or obstacles to one's endeavors.
Most people have no such luck when it comes to tremendous improvement in a sport.
There's just not enough time.
They're busy putting bread on the table - or with other essentials.

These analogies are a critique of your interpretation of information in game theory. Their purpose is not to relitigate the debate you had going with Optimissed, that's for you two to work out (or not). The claims you made in your post just reflect a deeper misconception you have about the relationship between information, luck, and consciousness.

There's a relationship between skill and luck. As I've explained, skill may reduce the influence of luck, but it does not eliminate it until the skill is perfected. Which in chess can never happen.

As a chess player cultivates skill they become more able to control the game. They consciously manage the games near-term complexity to an increasing degree. However, they never can manage all of that complexity, they can never have complete control over the outcome, and therefor can never eliminate all influence of luck over the outcome.

This concept of there being a degrees of luck vs. skill is maybe the core concept you are missing.

Similarly, we can imagine someone spent years practicing coin flipping - perfecting the amount of force they apply to the coin, flicking it at a specific angle to minimize the number of rotations, to where eventually they manage to get heads more often than tails. They may get heads 55% of the time, and tails 45% of the time. 
This expert coin flipper is not able to completely control what the coin lands on, he can control it to a degree. When he flips a coin, the influence of luck is lesser than for your typical person. However, the influence of luck is still there in large degree.

That's actually a misrepresentation of Optis argument, his argument was more about the coincidental timing of two events leading to a positive outcome.

I don't think there's any player who would not prefer to review the upcoming position right before a match every time. It's lucky to get to do that. It's kind of amazing you've been reduced to arguing otherwise... For a chess player, seeing and studying the position right before a match is far better than having seen it once years ago... Furthermore, chess players generally have not reviewed every position. Your argument here is not coherent.

And again, as I explained, luck is about probability in the sequencing and timing of events, i.e. it is meaningless to extend the timeline indefinitely and then claim luck does not exist.

The game doesn't have a mind, or the ability to care. The game doesn't assign a task, either, it can't do that.

Again you're struggling to understand that there's a relationship between luck and skill. Demonstrating the influence of skill does not eliminate any potential influence of luck, or vice versa. I've explained exactly why above.

Your argument is very lacking in substance here, it really reduces to a mere claim. There's not alot to say other than... well, think through it again, reread what I've written above and try to figure it out.

I don't see where complaining enters into this conversation in your mind but that's not what any of us here are doing. What we're doing is explaining to you that, infact, on a mechanical level, luck has an influence on a chess games outcome. And this is inescapable, the logic is bulletproof, you're not understanding the conversation... you're reducing it to emotion where there is none.

The fundamentals would change, yes, and the influence of luck would be reduced. As I explained. However, the influence of luck in a coin flip would never be eliminated.

It's artificial when you go so far as to consider the player themselves to be a factor outside of the game, since the game is not played without players... and the moment we entertain that it can be the conversation becomes meaningless, it no longer pertains to what we actually do when we play chess. Furthermore, your core argument pertained to information theory but the very concept of information assumes a subject.

From the post just now by @ibrust - this passage
"It's artificial when you go so far as to consider the player themselves to be a factor outside of the game, since the game is not played without players.."
Exactly and very efficiently put.
Probably Octo's biggest error is to try to define chess with the players artificially 'removed'.
But even with very strong computers playing each other -
there's still chance and luck there too.
Simple reason: chess is not solved.

I didn't "twist" your words. You have tried to make an artificial division of games won/lost by time forfeit based on whether or not one of the players was at the board or online when the forfeiture occurred. The games won/lost due to such time violation ARE NOT "dismissed and handled administratively". The results go into the tournament record just like any other game. Benefits/ detriments accrue to the winner/loser just as if the game was decided by checkmate.

When an online player sees they are losing and abandons the game in a fit of pique to let their opponent stew for five minutes until the time expires (a situation not uncommon on this site, judging by the number of complaints on chess.com forums) the game is not "dismissed" but is treated like any other time forfeiture. If a player at an otb tournament simply leaves the site in the middle of the game they can't come back after the round is finished and claim the game doesn't count because "conditions of a chess game are no longer there". The record of the 1972 Fischer v Spassky match shows Fischer won 12.5-8.5, giving Spassky credit for a win in game two when Fischer failed to show up.

These games decided by "unusual events" are still chess games. The results are still valid results. That skill at chess did not determine the outcome is irrelevant in that respect. It is your own convolutions of logic that make your conclusions appear unsubstantiable, not others' misrepresentations.

@ibrust

"There's a relationship between skill and luck. As I've explained, skill may reduce the influence of luck, but it does not eliminate it until the skill is perfected. Which in chess can never happen."

Chess is a game that allows a player force an optimal result with the information that is provided. That means a player can never require any luck to achieve the best result. It also means that if a human player specificly is unable to do that it has zilch to do with luck. Nothing. Only lack of skill. Its an unwinnable argument for you mate, as simple as that.

"I don't think there's any player who would not prefer to review the upcoming position right before a match every time. It's lucky to get to do that. It's kind of amazing you've been reduced to arguing otherwise... For a chess player, seeing and studying the position right before a match is far better than having seen it once years ago... Furthermore, chess players generally have not reviewed every position. Your argument here is not coherent."

What this would mean is that in any chess game ever you were able to argue that for example "you only won this game because you happened to study this endgame 10 years ago while I studied it 11 years ago, thus you were lucky". You understand now? A better way to look at it is that you refine your skills in an indefinite time line, you do it when and how you want to, and when you enter a game your skill level is what it is. It is a ridiculous and endless argument to start looking at timing and reasons why when and how somebody decided to refine their chess skills.

"It's artificial when you go so far as to consider the player themselves to be a factor outside of the game, since the game is not played without players... and the moment we entertain that it can be the conversation becomes meaningless, it no longer pertains to what we actually do when we play chess."

No. "We" or "what we actually do when we play chess" doesn't matter. Chess as a concept doesn't need any human as a player. Chess is fundamentally a set of game rules and gameplay mechanics. It includes two players that can be anything. What humans do when they play chess has nothing to do with chess as a concept. Only thing that matters is what is literally required for a chess game to exist.

Chess skill didn't determine the outcome because no complete chess game was ever played. A chess game requires two players and because this condition wasnt met a website or another administrative body had to resolve the situation outside of chess principles.

Playerafar youre doing a great job cheerleading, keep it up! The boys will get tired to debate otherwise.

The dice roll example that ibrust gave as an analog actually reflects luck in chess quite well. We can tweak a practical example a little bit. If a player was actually have the ability to control a dice roll up to, say, 50%, would this guarantee a win over a player that has 0% control? No. It's still up to chance who would win, with first player having the better odds. Even at a 100% the player can only hope that the guy relying purely on luck doesn't get an equal roll.

Same goes for chess. A greatly skilled player is never guaranteed to make a superior move to someone drawing moves from a hat.

I mentioned game theory just as a reference to Octo citing a Wikipedia article on perfect information... but I don't think he's representing game theory very well. Game theory isn't something I've deeply studied or derived my approach to the game from. However, looking into it a bit... it is interesting, I do think my approach closely resembles this idea of playing a Bayesian game - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_game

But I'm not deliberately basing my strategy on that, it's just a coincidence, but I'll just continue approaching the game as I do and if it coincides with something in game theory that's interesting. Probabilities are just one of multiple factors I would consider when looking at a line, and how things are evaluated is always very personal. I developed my strategy playing RTS games over about 25 years. At one point I beat some of the top players in North America at a game called Starcraft 2. That was a game with both incomplete and imperfect information, if we want to speak in game-theoretic terms. But in general I'd say I have a very practical and iterative approach to strategy, where I try to consider every facet and slowly reach a conclusion... but the approach over the years has become more aggressive, and it's also been augmented by divination. On the other hand, there are some lines I play that are quite mainstream - the Paulsen French is one example. I also like the QGD modern, mainly because of how it pairs with the Trompowsky.

There was a time when I was the most safe, mainstream player you would meet, but I could not break into GM in StarCraft 2 (probably equivalent to FM in chess) until I started playing primarily the player as opposed to the game. Of course, StarCraft is a different game than chess, but my approach has remained roughly the same, I suppose it's become stylistic. Both games do have in common an overwhelming level of complexity, though. I suppose I've come to use aggression as a way of controlling complexity.

But I've seen many times how styles can differ radically even amongst great players... I don't really believe in a comprehensive and objective ideal way of playing the game anymore.

Looking at it I do find the field of game theory kind of interesting, but I also agree that practical strategy and decision making takes priority over some theoretical model, and the model is always imperfect.

On the other hand, I always find it interesting hearing how smart people reason about strategy and approach things themselves, and I'd welcome hearing your ideas on how to strategize in chess.

It's also clear that Octo's thinking has been derailed by this notion of game theory, due to both his confused misreading of what the wikipedia articles say, combined with him being way in over his head trying to reconcile a model with reality. So probably the use of game theory is very damaging for him, and has contributed to this irrational obstinance we see here. However, seeing his last reply and how low quality it is I think I'm leaning toward just ignoring him at this point, I don't think anyone is going to take that gibberish very seriously anyway.

Octo you've done a poor job of cheerleading your 'there is no luck' fantasy.
--------------------------------------
To the rest of the forum:
If the forum title had been 'How and where does luck come in in chess?'
That would have been quite different.
As it is - the subject is just too slam-dunk.
Too obvious.
Which means that persons who want 'to play verbal chess a rook down' might follow their nose into defending a false claim - liking to do that ...
But a general discussion of luck in chess and in other things too has some merit.
One of the reasons is that's what people often think about in everyday life.
'What can I control and what can I not control? '
'What am I responsible for in the future?'
'What can I never be responsible for?'
Those questions come up constantly. Worldwide.
Whether consciously or subconsciously.
Determinism versus fatalism and so on.

😁

Oh we are pulling this card already. When one man argues with logic and reason and the other proceeds to generalized degrading of the reply, it speaks for itself.

Yeah but only at low levels -like me-

'Somebody' has to get off the 'Steroids'.
Could take a while.