Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

It is wrong "all the time?" So it is never right? Way to reason there, genius!

I prematurely accused optimiissed or whatever his name is of being the perfect embodiment of the dunning-kruger effect. but than i met you.

What? did your brain break already?

Im out. try not to overthink and hurt yourself, iburst.

You are wrong. I said it a total of twice--to you and to Optimissed--just like I said. The need to exaggerate to prove one's point is rarely a sign of great inellect. Just for funsies, give me an example of what you think is luck in chess. just one. but not that black/white thing. we have already covered this.

What in the holy hell are you talking about now? It seems whenever you or your buddy get backed into a corner you immediztely change the subject. So...if luck impacts chess and that is so obvious to you two brainiacs, give us an example. I will wait patiently by hummin the theme song to jeapardy,

ther have been a total of 0 valid examples. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Do you have one for consideration? I think not.

The silence is deafening. Better luck next time, philosopher-geniuses.

You know, I was quite enjoying the conversation before this, maybe we should move on.

I think it's an interesting question, how 'luck' can be defined (and not one with an obvious answer, no matter how many chat bots you consult). As someone who's studied some semantics at degree level, I think I hew close to where Wittgenstein ended up on how words have meaning, in that I think it's very context dependent and a much more murky idea than people think, and you have to look at how they are used, rather than what it says in a dictionary or whatever. Dictionaries are, after all, descriptive, not prescriptive.

I define luck quite broadly, because I think that in everyday usage when people talk about having luck they're talking about things going their way, even though they might have gone otherwise, and they didn't have much control over the outcome. I don't think they're thinking about whether the thing is a probabalistic event. So I think if you take a fairly broad view like that then sure, luck happens all the time in Chess. Luck that you got white randomly. Luck that your opponent failed to spot the blunder you just made. All kinds of things, that in general conversation, most people would agree were 'lucky' from my perspective, even if from the perspective of the opponent it was just bad play.

Because the way I think of language is around how it is used and generally understood, I don't have any problem with calling these kinds of events lucky, it seems quite evident to me that if I breathed a sigh of relief and said something like "Phew, lucky he didn't notice I hung my rook last turn" before embarrassedly moving it to safety, then nobody would look at me strange or think that's an odd thing to say. I got lucky and kept my rook, on account of a miss by my opponent. (But if my opponent then said "Ah, bad luck for me that I missed capturing that rook when I could" then people might find that odd because from my opponent's perspective, it was a matter of not having the skill in that moment to notice the capture)

But sure, one could argue that in order to talk about luck properly we need a more precise, strict definition of luck. One could argue that, and present an argument which might be internally consistent, but I would probably question why they are insisting on such a strict definition of luck that doesn't really match the way that we use the word in everyday speech.

I rambled a bit but I hope that goes a bit further to explain why I think the way we think of luck is not a matter that is obvious and self-evident, but actually (like a lot of language) pretty messy, hence all the arguments.

Jesus dude. I deleted some comments because i responded to the wrong person. However I am still waiting for one of you two geniuses to give me an example of what you think is luck in chess. Got one? Put up or shut up for the sake of everyone else on this forum.

No one has made an extensive argument--least of all you. So I looked you up to see if you were in fact a software engineer. While your claim is a bit of a stretch relative to your current position (which is unaruably very junior, At least you are not a toll booth operator as I imagined. So kudos for you.

Actually I missed the best example of luck I've read so far from user HonSec a couple of pages ago:
"if I move a pawn, intending to attack my opponent's knight, and inadvertently block a checkmate threat from a bishop-queen battery that I haven't seen, what is that, if not luck? It certainly isn't skill."

In other words, in Chess, it's perfectly possible to make a move which helps you out or even saves your game in a way that you didn't spot or intend. That being the case, it simply has to be a case of luck there, there's no other word for it. In that example, I didn't make the move out of skill, the intent behind my move had nothing to do with the checkmate threat, and if the knight (which, for the sake of argument let's say isn't involved in the checkmate threat which is to do with a queen and bishop on a diagonal.) weren't there I wouldn't have made the move. Therefore I avoided the checkmate threat by playing a move which appeared skillful but was actually right for all the wrong reasons.
I can also modify what I mean by luck, based on this example: to me a lucky event is one that works in my favour by means outside of my control and/or understanding. In the given example, it's within my control to make the pawn move, but the understanding that I should make the pawn move to block a checkmate threat was outside of my understanding, so making that move for unrelated reasons was a lucky event because it happened to save my game. It was me stumbling into a skilled move, rather than playing it because I knew it would foil a threat. Luck.

Yeah I already addressed that one. Got anything better?

or not.

Yeah, yeah, I saw you, er, thought you addressed that one before. As I said, I'm talking to other people. You can safely assume I'm not talking to you, Tempetown. Don't worry your head over it.

What comment are you referring to? Give me a number, Mr, Junior Cell phone programmmer dude.

No worries. I have no issues with you, just with a couple others who are far more impressed with themselves than they should be,

I see among your amazing career accomplishments as a junior mobile cell phone 'developer' that you wrote iOS and Android native modules! That is just awe inspiring. Your parents must be so proud of you!!!!

Yeah? Where did this awesome leadership on you part take place--during your three years at Walmart? And why are you basically begging for a job on your linkedin page?

I don't think I'm comfortable with people looking up other people on linkedin and dragging that information into the forums, really. Feels a bit weird. Doesn't feel appropriate, y'know? Or particularly relevant.