Somebody just claimed he 'has never trolled'.
I didn't read further in that post.
I usually don't read the rest of posts that begin with an invalid premise.
---------------------

Forum subject concerns 'luck in chess'.
Obviously there is.
And there's been an attempt to claim that if and when external factors interfere then that's not 'chess'.
There's also substantial disagreement as to what's internal and what's external and what is or can be affected by chance and luck.
Chess itself has very strict rules. But chess isn't 'its rules' except for those who want it to be.
But terminology like 'luck' and various other words - doesn't.
Result: attempts to impose word meanings.
Key word: 'attempts'
--------------------
additional Edit: 'the guy' will want bottom post and try to assert his imaginary authority again and maybe 'play victim' too.
But eventually somebody else will post under him.
Plus anybody can quote better posts by others previously and respond to them - thus breaking the agenda the Guy is looking for of long looped one on one exchanges.
Which some complain about. Often rightly.
But its Funny when some of them then pursue the same thing themselves.
Hahahahahah.

No, the game is not "cancelled" because one player stops playing for some reason. ALL points are awarded by the "administrating body"--the TD, organizer or website. Usually there are signed scoresheets turned in at a tournament but if one player has left without providing the organizer with theirs the other player's becomes the official record. Online games end when the website computer sees checkmate, resignation, or time forfeit. It does NOT matter WHY one player runs out of time.

Chess games are not a "theoretical, philosophical" matter; they exist in the real, practical world. Games can be won/lost in a variety of ways and still really exist. This is the policy of chess.com and every other chess website I have heard about, and is the policy of the US Chess Federation and FIDE. One dissenting internet cephalopod cannot overrule every chess organization in the world.

I think lucks isn't anything about wining a game it how you play.

Any chess organization or chess.com are not an internal part of chess and neither are their practical decisions on how to handle situations. They simply govern events where chess can take place.

It is a philosophical matter and I'll give you one last analog that will help you understand and cannot be countered.

If an external luck event (as opposed to influence of conscious ability) that affects the result is to be considered luck in chess, then an external influence of a conscious effort that affects the result has to be considered ability in chess.

And with a practical real life component:

If a power outage is to be considered luck IN chess, then a player threatening an opponent with a weapon, causing them to time out, has to be considered ability IN chess.

Or what I propose: Both are an external influence that should be considered as it actually is, external. It is not something that is a part of chess or as the title of the thread goes, a factor (luck or else) IN chess. It can happen but the impact and result caused by it should not be considered something that is according to chess principles and game mechanics. Thus, external probabilistic factors are not luck in chess.

There's an Infinite Set of possible external factors that are part of Luck in Chess.
But there's also an Infinite Set of luck factors that are Internal to chess because the players and 'game' are internal parts of chess and so is their play which forms 'game'.
And both of those are subject to 'internal factors'.
For example if one player just happens to have prepared for the precise opening variation his opponent played even though that opponent isn't known to play that variation - then that opponent 'Got Lucky'.
Some will try to claim 'No No No. That's skill!'
They'll ignore the scenario of that 'prepared' opponent having neglected most of his prepartion including preparation for that opponent.
Its not skill. Its luck. And chess isn't in another dimension somewhere.
----------------------
Does the subject make a good 'conversation piece'?
Kind of. Especially for chessplayers - 'wanting to Take Positions'.

'off focus'
with that person wanting to spam about his Club Secretary.
Good thing that person isn't in charge here.

Octo actually makes better posts than 'the Guy'. (Guy wants to make it personal)
So does ibrust. Wait ... Everybody makes better posts than 'the guy' who will never solve his 'problem of nasality' and then plays victim when he gets talked back to.
Anyway - the discussion goes on. He can't prevent it.

Others disagree with Octo ... and Octo might not like my posts.
But Octo does try to make good posts.
With some success. Without 'nasality'.

O I O I A O I

dang that's wild.

regarding *anything

Stands. 'Judging' is someone else's idea. And projection. As usual.
'The Guy' seems to be asserting that 'nasality' applies to him.
But I said 'without nasality'. I didn't mention 'the Guy' there.
Why did he connect 'nasality' with himself?
Why would he 'recognize himself' in that way?
Looks like he's making it 'extremely clear' that's exactly what he did.
And does. Constantly. But no names.
Haahahaahah.

Why does it always feel like you're speaking to an imaginary audience?
It's like we're rattling off messages to birds flying around our heads here.
Like 100% of the time you're in this mode of appealing to the shallow perceptions of the masses, in order to mislead them into sadistically gleeful directions.
The naive, impressionable and defenseless masses who can't help but follow you down the path you're leading them on...
Seeing as you're a programmer my guess would be that you live a very socially isolated, numb existence, and seeking to cause / feed off of peoples turmoil is something you do compulsively in order to you feel like you're alive, and not completely mechanized. 
I do have some empathy for you, but nonetheless you are insane, and until you fully acknowledge / embrace the fact you will continue to become more insane.
Of course, one problem is the masses aren't quite as shallow / dumb as you assume they are. They're dumb yes, but not all of them and not as dumb.
Eventually the masses grow up and start to fight back, then you have problems.
Or in the case of women they just decide you don't exist, and that's just as bad.

Luck in chess isn't confined to things like power outages.
Luck in chess also pertains to central internal things like choice of opening preparation.
There's also the issues of how the different playing styles of players impact the varying temperaments of opponents - or fit right in with their preferences.
---------------------------
There is much luck in chess.
A player who is a nemesis of another - always beating him badly - and they both are contending in the late rounds of a tournament - but that nemesis opponent isn't paired with that player and so he ends up with a good showing in the money or even winning the tournament - because of the pairings.
He was lucky. And may even admit it after.
The other player could even be a friend.
And says after "Congratulations Amigo!"
'Thank you Man! Sure glad I didn't have to play you!'
"Yes you got Lucky.
But don't forget we can always split our prize money after.
There's no rule against it"
"That's right Jose! And I'm paying for dinner tonight.'

I don't know who ibrust is talking to there.
I'm not a programmer.
And he broke from his recent pattern of not getting personal.
I don't think it could apply to me because I don't talk about 'dumb masses'.

No, you just presume to speak at them very often, while assuming they're stupid enough to buy what you're selling.

re profession: well you could of fooled me, the way you were speaking with the air of authority about AI earlier.

What do you do for a living? 
Let's see if you can answer a personal question in a way that's honest and straightforward.
Why are you afraid of getting personal? That's why you speak to the masses isn't it, it allows you avoid intimacy... it allows you to avoid being honest about yourself. So what are you hiding, then...?
It's ok, that's rhetorical, you don't have to answer that.

@ibrust
You've fooled yourself.
And if you're like the other - you'll pretend to a phony authority you don't have.
And you're projecting too.
Anytime somebody talks on the internet - they're talking 'to the masses'.
So you may be fooling yourself - but not many other people.
It does look kind of 'dysfunctional'.
You've said AI is a great resource and you use it every day.
Are you 'talking to the masses'?
Want to talk some more about AI?
---------------------------
Your question about 'imaginary audience' is kind of silly.
You're obviously reading my posts.
So you've just contradicted yourself quite badly.
'Why does it feel?'
Because you chose to follow your nose.
Now lets see if you can 'be honest' and admit you have just contradicted yourself.
I'm guessing No.
Surprise me.
-----------------------------
Edit: @ibrust
His posts have disappeared here and elsewhere.
It appears he has been reported and muted by whoever. Rightly.
Or perhaps it was a robo-mute.
Not I. I didn't report him.
That mute of @ibrust leaves me with four consecutive posts but I'm not complaining.
And reading back through this forum I just discovered that @ibrust has been muted before. His abrupt change of personality today and his pretense of 'no audience' smacks of 'the guy'. That and his false accusations and overtures about 'intimacy' are almost identical with the guy's. And his sudden and very biased and robotic defenses of 'the guy' are also there.

It isn't, but that was one argument to handle. We can talk about your arguments if you want.

You should prepare one argument properly instead of listing many and leaving the arguments on a surface level. If you can prove one convincingly that is a better strategy. I'm gonna address some of these I guess.

First of all - Tournament pairings are not chess. Tournament is an separate structure to organize players and decide who plays chess against who. It's often randomized which is luck, but again not a factor IN chess.

Choice of opening preparation... I've addressed this before. Opening preparation is part of a life long process of developing chess skill. Developing chess skill happens outside of chess and is based on a conscious effort. If you face someone who cannot handle your particular skill set, there is no luck component, it's all skill vs skill.