Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

You suppose that what you see as reality is reality. How do you know that? Your description of what you say is reality doesn't seem very encouraging and if it were wrong .....

every one shut up

beat boi beat my meat boi

ohio

There is some luck in chess as I have noticed the same incident for example when u blunder a queen and the opponent does not notice it and many more

To be fair, the sort of chess where people blunder a queen isn't what's being discussed.

There is literally no such thing as luck in chess. Explain to me how that even works

See my post #4234 and find the mistake, then?

I'm a believer in and practitioner of magical thinking. Have been since 1969 when a girlfriend gave me a challenge which I accepted. Still an atheist though.

Hope that isn't addressed to me. I was beginning to think you might have some intelligence so don't spoil it.

As for being a practitioner, I try not to these days. Do you have a worthwhile comment?

No, far from it but that was a pointless comment you made. You seem to make a lot of them. If someone's going to dispute something with me I'd prefer it if they were intelligent people, since I don't want to waste my time explaining the relationship of luck, chance and randomness to someone who isn't interested in learning anything anyway. How is it possible to have a discussion about such things with someone with fixed ideas and a very limited perception of reality?

This isn't an insult but you should accept the reality about yourself or change it. To change it requires magical thinking so it would appear that you're stuck.

I knew a young lad from the USA, maybe 14 or 15. He was getting into trouble at school and I think he had "ADHD". A lot of people regarded him as quite a troll here but it seemed to be worthwhile and it seemed he was responding to someone taking an interest in him and trying to give him helpful advice. But this was a couple of months ago when the trolling problem was at its worst. It seems to be largely sorted now. I had to be offline for a few days or maybe a week and when I got back, I think I'd let it slip that I think we can alter things by the way we think about them and it seemed that this person didn't take kindly to someone believing that and he was really quite unpleasant so I blocked him. He seemed to disappear after that. If he returns he's going to stay blocked unless he apologises but in any case, blocking here is only symbolic. It isn't a real block like on Facebook. Just a semi-mute.

I'm mentioning that because your comments were also a little off, although within the bounds of respectability. But conversations beyween anyone are a matter of mutual co-operation, which isn't going to happen when one person can't help expressing his extremely strong views rather unpleasantly. You really should learn to discuss rather than dictate. You force people into corners and make them look down on you, which doesn't help you in any way.

When the wind blows your piece to a square different from the one upon which you intended to place it your comparison will be appropriate.

The problem I have with the "we don't know everything about every possible move in most positions, therefore there must be an element of chance involved" proposition is that practical experience shows it to be untrue. Should a 1350-rated player play a 1950-rated player, we find the higher-rated player will win almost every time. Yet neither player is near master strength, so we acknowledge their deficiencies in skill. If both players' moves are determined partly by luck, the laws of probability would suggest that the 1350 player will do better more often than is the case. It is the greater number of poorer moves selected by the weaker player that will make the difference, unless we extend the "luck in every move" theory to include the principle that every time a player fails to make the best move it is because of bad luck.

Further, the oft-expressed "I wasn't sure which move was better so I guessed--then three moves later I found out that was the best move" reasoning is flawed. Aside from the fact that in many cases there will be two or more nearly-equal moves, who can say that in situations where neither player can know the optimum move the good result was not due to the opponent's intervening poor choices?

The first one is the meaning of the Old Dutch "luc" that came into English in the 15th century, derived from the French lucre (Latin lucrum--profit). As I said it is now obsolete and rare. I never proposed that any presence of "one's own efforts" negates any possibility of luck being involved--that was Coolout's mantra.

yes

I did use the link you provided, and that is exactly the definition that link provided.

Yet you repeatedly claim that other definitions "fail" or "are wrong", or that OED was good years ago but now is inferior, despite the fact that the older definitions you like are still included, even if they report that different usage has become more usual. If it is simply a matter of your preference compared to others' choices, that's exactly what I said. It's the insistence of many posters that any conclusions reached from definitions other than their preferred "correct" interpretation are inherently mistaken.

Just checked it and of course you're right so I apologise. The format is terrible and I must have jumped to the first thing that looked like a sentence. It turns out that was the definition of the so-called "verb". I must say calling luck a force is complete drivel. I can understand people just totally rejecting that.