Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

No, no. I haven't made an error, but you have apparently misinterpreted the premise. I know an opponent or two players is a part of the concept of chess. However the process of choosing the opponent take place before chess. Chess starts when there are two players in place to play.

Again I'm not even a 100% sure I'm addressing the right argument because you leave them shallow... If someone disagrees with you theres alot of detail they have to guess. Hence the advice I gave you earlier. But all of that is just advice, not an order or instruction. It's simply better to focus on one complete argument instead of many lacking ones.

And no I do not care about analysis of the guy or whoever. But maybe somebody does?

Yes you have Octo. And you've made several other errors too.
It is not for you to decide how others present arguments.
Your arrogance there is extreme.
And what you do or do not care about - I do not care about.
Why would you entertain a delusion that I would?
And your reason for trying to insist that multiple arguments aren't presented against you is that you don't like multiple arguments presented against you.
Lol!

I just said, it's just advice. No arrogance there. The kind of list of arguments your produce leads to lack of quality. Quality over quantity is all I'm saying.

If you're going to refer to errors in your post (like one that I just addressed in my previous post), they should be pointed out in the particular post. Otherwise it's a baseless claim, either dishonest or incompetent argument.

But continue to do what you want. I will gladly address your points if they're of appropriate quality.

Ah, long time ago I have participated here (with some long thought experiments

Now I just want to say:

Does chess bring in randomizers (like dice or shuffling of cards are brought in, in other games)? No. (Except for the drawing of colours). But then again.. There is drawing of moves, too. Could we say, at times, we draw moves from a pool of moves like we draw lots from a lottery urn?

I'd say "yes". Is it part of the game? I'd say "yes". Would it be chess if we never drew a move like from a lottery urn? That is, would it be a game if it were solved? Is tic, tac, toe a game? I'd say, as long as you play tic, tac, toe fast enough to have lottery moments, it is.

Imagine chess was solved and somebody would say they are playing the correspondence world chess championship. What do you mean, play? They are looking up the moves. So it would be chess, but it would be no game, anymore? Let's say it would be a game that could no longer be played.

So, is there luck in chess? No! Is there luck in playing chess? Yes!

I think you have to say there's luck in chess if there can be said to be luck in anything. To me the only way it makes sense to talk about 'luck' is not like it's some sort of cosmic force, but basically anything that goes your way (or the opposite), when that's outside your control. If we don't accept that definition of luck then I don't think there's any point in the conversation - but if we do, then it's obvious that there is luck in chess.

So even the very basic thing of if you randomly get white, you have a very slight game advantage. You didn't do that, so that could be described as luck. You still need to convert that advantage into a win, and it's only slight, but it's still an advantage. You had no influence on this outcome and it went your way, it's a bit of luck.

If the other player blunders a piece because they didn't notice a tactic, there's at least some luck there. Sure, it takes skill for you to notice the tactic, and skill to get into a position that makes your tactic possible, but if they could have defended against it and didn't that's lucky for you (it's not unlucky for them though, because defending against the tactic was within their control)

Even stuff that happens before the game - say, a random opponent playing an opening you happened to study well over lunch and is very fresh in your mind could be thought of as luck. You had no knowledge they'd play that (even if you'd had a chance to study them, you wouldn't know for sure) and perhaps might have studied any number of others. It was wise to study openings, but luck that you happened to focus on the one that got used.

And so on. We all know chess is a game where you have complete information, which makes it tempting to think there's no luck involved. But unless you think luck can be defined in any way other than events you don't control going your way or against you, surely the presence of luck is a given.

Somebody just made a good post regarding the fact that since chess isn't solved - then the pool of possible move options at many points is a kind of 'lottery'.
A valid point.
But - 'chess' is not 'playing chess' ?
Answer: the word 'chess' refers to pairs of opponents playing games of chess against each other.
Can the word 'chess' refer to other things?
Yes. Or it can be used with other words.
---------------------------
If a strong computer plays itself at chess - is there 'luck' in that?
I would say no.
Is it technically still 'chess'?
The word chess was not meant as a mathematical term.
Still isn't.
The word 'chess' doesn't refer to 'chess rules'. They're distinct.
'Chess' often goes with 'playing chess'.
------------------------
If we find anything that is an exception to a general reality- then does the exception invalidate all the instances of the general reality?
The answer is No.
And it doesn't invalidate Any of them - unless you could find exceptions to that.
That also applies to 'elements' of a general reality too.
A chessboard is an element of chess.
Is there luck in a chessboard?
No.
But a chessboard is not 'chess'.
Is there luck in chess?
Yes. Obviously.
Does that luck take different forms?
Yes. Many.
Does that luck have different causes?
Yes. Many.
Are there such things - Plural - that are 'luck in chess'?
Yes. Many. Obviously.

The only luck in chess is the question of a blind choice of white or black. Your example of your opponent making a piece is not the presence of luck, as you claim. It is the absence of skill. Any move that isnt perfect (which are many in chess) would otherwise be deemed luck. If you win because your opponent blundered, you won because you were more skillful than him, not because you were luckier.

Why did it get draw I was up queen king vs king out of time but still draw?

You were up Q + K vs. K and your opponent was out of time? I doubt it. Show us the game.

I disagree. I don't think that just because you have demonstrated more skill than the other player that precludes luck in the way I have defined it: things that go your way or against you, which you don't control. You are not responsible for your opponent's lack of skill, so if they make a blunder, that's lucky for you, as you couldn't make them blunder and they might not have done. As I said before, that doesn't mean it's unlucky for them, because they did have control. So it is *both* your luck and their lack of skill. I think the two are compatible, given any (sensible) definition of luck. So, about that:

If we are talking about another definition of luck, then I'd like to know what that definition is. If luck is some mysterious force, then I don't believe in it in any cases, not just chess. But if it's something we can pin down, then at the moment I can't think of a better way to describe the concept of a lucky occurrence than 'something that happens that is favourable to someone which came about for reasons fully or partially out of their control'. This fits all kinds of lucky scenario I can think of. Win the lottery? You didn't make those random numbers match yours, it was pure luck. Find a coin? You just happened to walk by and spot it, and someone else had to drop it. Maybe you're more observant than most, but it's still mostly out of your control. Mostly luck. Opponent makes a blunder in Chess? You didn't make them do that, and there's skill involved in seeing the blunder and taking advantage, but if they hadn't made that choice you'd not have the opportunity to do so, so partially luck.

A couple of days ago I played a game when I was tired and managed to blunder two pieces. I was also low on time, and was pretty sure I wouldn't be able to prevent a checkmate with the time I had left. So I knowingly made a bad checking move, fully aware it'd worsen my position even more unless the other player blundered, in the vague hope that they might blunder the defense. They did, I followed up with a mate in 3. By your argument there was only skill involved here, and while my moves weren't skillful, theirs were even worse. But I don't think that's really true and intuitively feel like that gives me way too much credit. They were playing a decent game up to that point and I'd been making the blunders. I had little reason to hope they'd blunder in this position, and played my move fully aware it shouldn't work. There were far better moves on the table than the one I made, I just couldn't calculate them, so I went risky instead. From their perspective, they messed up (and they did). But from my perspective, I had a lucky escape.

OK. Give me one example (other than the black/white assignment) in chess, that is luck, not skill. So far you have posted nothing but examples of one player playing with greater skill than the other.

PLUS, your very definition of luck is faulty. Things that go your way or against you that you do not control, obviously includes your opponent's moves. There is no luck involved withb your opponents' moves even though you dont control them. If your oponent makes a good or bad move, it has nothing to do with luck--o9nly his skill or lack thereof.

But you haven't answered *me* yet. I already explained how a the fact that there's a difference in skill isn't incompatible with how I'm defining luck. It can be both their lack of skill and my luck. That's what I said.

To be clear, my claim is: that any single event that happens to a person which works out in their favour, which they didn't have full control over, can accurately be described as 'lucky' in all senses that we understand that word in the English language. If that doesn't describe luck, what does?
If you have a different definition of what a lucky event is, then provide it, and I'll let you know if I think it's valid.

@KestelPi Tell me if the following sentence holds any merit: "It certainly was lucky for me that I was able to play more skillfully than my opponent and beat him!" That is what your argument says.

Dude, you dont have to take my word for it. Just google "is there luck involved in chess?" BOOM. you lose!

No, it's not what my argument says. The only thing I argue is that luck isn't some mysterious force, there's nothing deep about it: it's simply a way of describing when things go our way for reasons we don't control. And of course, this happens all the time in Chess. Yes, it happens when our opponent makes less skillful moves, but that doesn't make it any less lucky. Luck is a matter of *perspective*.
Sure, I wouldn't use the words "It certainly was lucky for me that I was able to play more skillfully than my opponent and beat him!" because that's a weird way to put it but you know what, I definitely would use words like "It certainly was lucky for me that my opponent failed to notice my move was unsound and blundered the game" because I think the other player playing unskillfully and me being lucky are compatible. If they're not, then luck doesn't really signify anything meaningful.

Kestrel making some very good points there.
His opponent not doing badly either.

@KestrelPi

Luck is a subjective view of probabilistic events. Not deterministic or conscious efforts, such as skill in chess. There is no objective chance or luck in chess.

Now we're getting somewhere! So what you're saying is that in order for luck to be involved the events have to be in some way... probabilistic. Can we define that a little more so we can see if that's robust?
I promise, I'm not doing this to be annoying: it's my suspicion the reason people can't agree on this is that we're all working with different ideas of what luck is. So I've proposed one, to see if it holds up. Maybe your one holds up better

'luck is a subjective view'
Its not a 'view'. Except for some who want it to be.