Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

So then, to you, someone that doesn't have any education, doesn't understand anything, doesn't try to learn anything, and simply says "show me" to everything brought before them...that person would have to be some kind of hero. I would not buy that is almost anyone's actual position, but in your case, I could buy it. You'll seemingly take any position as long as it's counter to authority, expertise, and anything established.

No. As you usefully pointed out earlier, I am a duck, and ducks assiduously avoid taking a position on the shape of the earth or any other geometric controversy as a matter of policy. They avoid it like the plague, as a matter of fact.

And you, Diogenes, are an illegal position on a non-regulation board, so I hardly think you are in any position to criticize.

Don't disparage ducks or other migratory birds, who effectively "know" the earth is round (they navigate using spherical magnetic fields).

A meaningless attempt, but I'll give you that one in the name of pity.

It's meaningful to those who know. It's positively fecundated with significance to those who understand.

I award you no points, etc.

Is there luck in chess? Yes.
But there's also skill in chess and in other chess things like how this chess website is run.

I find that we should speak the truth whether or not we like the people involved in the discussion or debate. I am confused, however, in that I still don't know why anyone would argue against the existence of both skill... to the extent we understand our moves... and luck... to the extent that we do not... both of which are obviously real factors.

Understanding and not understanding are not all the elements of skill and luck.
One can make a best move without 'understanding' it.
That doesn't have to be luck.
Happens constantly. Good moves are often made on principle.
Because chess is not solved.
And bad moves that end up not costing the game as so often happens - do not have to be 'not understood' in order to be lucky.
Or unlucky as the case might be.
----------------
skill and luck are both in the game and people know it.
Whatever is 'argued' like by people who are deniers who know that global warming exists and that the disasters it has been causing that are getting worse too also exist or argued by people who want to believe in a flat earth.
But in the case of luck in chess - there's also that idea of models or constructs in which by restructuring definitions whoever could end up arguing there's no such thing.

I notice the discussion has definitely taken a turn for the worse and I wont even read all that.

Id like to say making assumptions or talking about someone elses living conditions in a discussion like this is not necessary or acceptable. This personal backnforth in general is highly unnecessary. Get it together guys.

Follow your own advice Octo.
O-person - S. Looks like Octo's working on being #3 in that pecking order.

Another way of saying there's luck in chess.
4 dimensional?
I prefer 5th. 5th Dimension. A couple of nice songs they came up with.

Let me make something perfectly clear for you to understand:

Substantiated critique of one's argumentation and/or post sctructure is perfectly fine in a discussion. Talking about someones bed times and care homes, or your imaginary hierarchies is NOT. For anyone, for that matter. (edit. playerafar himself or a mod deleted the post I refer to)

Is there such thing as "luck" in chess? Hell naw its all skill

Hi BB ! How ya' doin'?
Ah don't agree but I like your post anyway.

Hello everyone, I'm a newbie. Both on the forum and in the chat rooms. 
But it seems to me that in this game, there is some luck, but it's not really luck as such) 
It's more like an opponent's mistake.

Hi @ArringtonT
Another idea: Some taking the position that lack of skill by one of the two opponents is not 'luck' for the other player.
That's arbitrary though. Semantics of 'luck'.
Another position - that its only luck if the lack of skill by one player 'rescued' the losing lack of skill by the other.
But in that case that would be luck in the game.
I finished in the money in several live chess tournaments many years ago because of some luck.
One i already mentioned.
----------------------
In another - my opponent was destroying my position in the opening and extending that into the middlegame and then there were exchanges down to an endgame.
I would have lost that endgame and first place in the tournament -
if he had not unnecessarily blundered his knight away.
Allowing me to win and get a perfect score with sole first.
I was lucky. It was obvious.
And it was luck arising from elements internal to the game.

Some people seem to think that they're mutually exclusive but that doesn't affect things.

Sand and salt are mutually exclusive in that one isn't the other but they seem to exist ok when they're mixed together.

I feel like the only luck in chess is if your opponent doesn't see something that you do like check mate