Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Thank you Playerafar once again for your meaningful contribution - Arbitrarily declaring an opposing view as nonsense, refusing to give any substantial counter argument while also stating that nobody cares. Glad youre here to do a quality job in interfering with topical conversation....

Edit. The poster in question edited out the mentioned faulty rhetorics, for now atleast. From now on I will use the quote function without exception so I suggest keeping the posts clean in the first place.

'Opposing view' is you being very generous to your own posts - 
and in your usual way arguing that there's some kind of burden to disprove your nonsense.
There isn't but you can keep on with your 'meaningful pretense' that there is.
Thank you? For the attention?
---------------------------
Solipsism: the solipsist contests in a generic way anything being proven to him/her.
Sometimes the solipsist believes his her own claims.
But there's also the tactical solipsist - who is usually insincere.
Again rejects reality but asserts unreality and tries to maintain that whoever has to disprove it.
Similiar to organized denialism with similiar tactics - but in that case their targeting is particular and they have 'memberships or indoctrinations' like for example denial of manmade climate change.
There are no organizations of people claiming 'there is no luck in chess and other games' for a simple reason in addition to the unreality of such a thing.
Because its too hard a sell which is part of nobody really caring about that anyway.
---------------------
Good chess instructors will encourage their pupils to not play 'hope chess' and be as independent of good and bad fortune as possible (and coaches in other sports too) but will also encourage them to be strong when things take a bad turn and result for reasons that were not under their control - and (depending on the age and temperament of their pupils) not to rationalize when the breaks happen to go their way.
Rejoice in good fortune. Rejoice rather than rationalize.
Everyone knows that if you win a losing game because your opponent lost his internet connection - that you were lucky.

Why do you ask?

Do you understand that one can approach any discussion by asserting the opposing view as nonsense and refusing to address/refute any of the opposing points?

Theres no point to the forum if thats the only approach. Even flat earth arguments are refuted with evidence. Your approach is simply friction to any topical discussion that can take place here.

Maybe, can be yes can be no

Octo has no proof of his claims. No evidence.
His posts are refuted over and over again.
Flat earthers don't have proof of their claims either - nor are they receptive to evidence refuting their claims.
Octo knows that winning a lost game because the opponent's internet connection fails is luck.
---------------------------
Regarding a position by much better (and more sincere) posters than Octo that there is 'no luck' in chess - some of those persons will or do or would recognize a difference between 'rejecting' luck in chess and 'denying' luck in chess.
Rejection versus denial.
Rejection of something doesn't have to include denial of its existence.
Rejection implies that something isn't wanted - not a pretense.
Denialism of things that are real and commonly recognized, such as not having total control of an outcome, such denialism are pretenses.
----------------
There is another situation and that is defining subjective things as perceptions.
But that has grey areas.
Is purpose always subjective? It only exists subjectively?
I would say no.
Anything with DNA in it that is living and functioning to survive has purpose.
That's an objective fact.
So events not under the control of that living thing that happen to determine the good or bad fortune of that living thing are luck.
In other words a tree can be lucky. It doesn't need perception of luck to be lucky.
Whereas a rock cannot be lucky. It has no DNA. It has no operation to survive.
People know these things.
Realities are consequences of existence not somebody's logic or illogic.
---------------------

'We don't want luck in chess'
Doesn't mean luck doesn't exist in chess.
Most people stop at red lights.
Doesn't mean you'll never get hit.
Or you could be lucky. Every time. Over time.

The first page was 🔥

i played against a lucky duck once, so i guess yeah.

Without pieces and a board it would be impossible for most players to have learned the game, let alone play it. They are a necessary part of the game. Should most players attempt play without them it would be impossible to settle the inevitable disagreements. If we wish to have chess players, clubs, and tournaments we have to put up with them. It we wish to have the ability for a person in England to play a person in Japan the internet "in real time" we have to use the internet or some other similar mode of communication.

It is undeniable that virtually all chess players consider winning/losing part of the game; in fact, the principle goal to be pursued. Sometimes winning/losing IS determined by factors other than the position of the pieces on the board. (Incidentally, I consider most of the "real world examples" you have provided--and claimed I must accept accept as logical outgrowths of my opinions--to be bogus. How could a broken board determine the winner of a chess game?) That there are instances where incidents we classify as "luck" will determine success in a chess game played under conditions to which the organizers, chess governing bodies, and the players themselves have agreed is indisputable.

Ideally, such things should not happen, but in reality "excrement happens" and we just have to resign ourselves to the fact that everything in life doesn't conform to the ideal.

hi am I aloud to join ur group chat I am a world time champ my name is Alireza Firouzja

Hi.
Forums are not clubs.
This is a forum.
If you allow yourself to join then you are allowed to join.
The only people who can throw you out of a forum are the opening poster and the moderators and staff of chess.com.

Octo's positions are very similiar to somebody trying to insist the earth is flat.
But does he believe his own nonsense?
I think he has an idea of operating a phony 'debate authority' and maintain that he isn't obliged to concede realities. And as part of that lopsided silliness to maintain that others are obliged to disprove his absurdities while he pretends that realities aren't realities.
Like a defense lawyer of a guilty criminal might pirouette in front of a jury.
-----------------------------
earlier a titled player came here and asserted that the subject of this forum has already been beaten to death.
There's perhaps three subset subjects.
1) Attempted defense of 'no luck' by ridiculous semantics constructs or attempted impositions.
2) Or - much less ridiculous but still failing - to argue that luck itself 'is just a perception'.
Its not. Its more than real enough. 
What would be much harder to refute is, 'morality is a perception'.
But that discussion wouldn't be allowed probably.
3) People in sports and games may tend to reject luck because of seeing them as contests of skill but that doesn't mean they're in Denial of luck existing in contests and other things.
Competitors tend to accept that things beyond their control and their opponent's control might determine who wins in their contests - including a sudden lapse of concentration by the opponent - because that could be because of something beyond his control.
--------------------------------
You don't have to have a phobia about bad luck to accept its possibility and go ahead and play.
You don't have to think: 'better not play because my opponent might beat me because my internet connection might fail.'

Impersonating a titled player is an actionable offense on the forums.

When I talk about fundamental necessities to the game my view is a little more abstract than yours.. I dont consider practicalities of human play and learning to be a relevant criteria at the abstract level of fundamental mechanics of chess. Internet is a necessary tool for us to arrange playable conditions in such an intercontinental manner, but a game of chess can exist without it just fine. Thus, internet failing is simply humans failing at creating playable conditions for that particular incomplete game...

You consider my (practical) demonstration of the weaknesses of your chosen criteria "bogus"... But then again we discussed it for quite a few posts and I must say I'm not that bad at recognizing a refutation when I see one, but I didnt see one. What I propose is that you feel those real world examples are intuitively bogus.. but that is the fault of a faulty framework behind them that Im attempting to point out. In that framework theyre logical. And btw the broken board wasnt an example of such, different context.

Im definitely not disagreeing that in real world conditions random stuff happens, however as Ive explained I think its more logical to think that stuff happens outside of the game and just messes up our arrangements for the beautiful game of chess to take place...

Rememnber Capa saying: good players are always lucky... and smile!

Maybe,can be yes can be no

they are always lucky when they are playing against noobs.

you can't change nerds

and skill issue if you can't read it