Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

LOL,  if what you are saying is true why would you even question my explanation of chance verse luck in the first place?   I think the truth is your head just exploded lmao. 

The whole point of this conversation is to determine if there are elements of luck in chess.   The answer is no for many reasons.   Not even the only element of random chance,  getting white or black pieces,  can be considered luck.   Neither can the chances of winning or losing can be considered luck.   Neither can a wrong or good move can be considered luck.    The reason is because if you adhere to the actual definition of luck,  its not luck if it is your own actions or which did not increase the chances of your success or failure.   Period.

Stop right there at your first couple of words.  "Magnus Carlsen makes a pawn move"   It wasn't some unseen force that made that decision for him.  He didn't actually roll the dice, he made an educated guess.    It was his own determination and action.   Period.   Doesn't matter what he predicted right or wrong.      Did you even read through this thread,  did you even look up the definition of luck?     Did you even read my last posts?  lol

Fishing for fish and finding treasure are not even related to your magnus example.  Yes finding treasure would be considered lucky.  But would you then say finding treasure is part of fishing?   Of course not.  Your fishing skills did not influence your chances of finding treasure bud.  Unlike Magnus Carlsens intuition which comes from years of experience at chess which influenced his chosen chess moves.  Think of it like an exercised skill,  like muscle memory.   He doesn't even have to know why he is doing it,   its part of his practice and knowledge. And the fact is no outside force caused him to do it.  period.

It is racist to specifically call out Americans. If this is meant as an insult, then obv you can tell why it is racist. If it is meant as praise, then it is not racist, but I sincerely doubt that.

You probably won’t even respond or make a valid argument, because, y’know, I’m right, but whatever. It is you who needs to do the researching.

Very confusing. I agree with everything you said and thought wow she understands.   But then at the very last sentence you went to left field and contradicted it all.   

Wrong. Extremely wrong. Not even close.

American is not a race. The United States is a nation. Its residents, commonly called Americans, are made up of many races. Race itself is a social construct with no biological reality, but the term is generally used to distinguish different groups of people on the basis of skin color. Indigenous Americans (also called Native American Indians, and variants on that phrase) are considered a racial group.

I used “racist” as a broad general term. I am aware that there is a term for discrimination against a certain nation, but my point still stands, you are discriminating (calling them out needlessly) against something/someone for no reason. Thanks for the explanation of racism, but it was unneeded

That is an interesting scenario, but I disagree.

Luck is completely random. I.E you cannot change the outcome in any way. Preventing that knight move could have been changed by not moving the queen. Since it is preventable, it is not luck, since it was not completely random. It may not have been intentional, but non-intentional luck is still luck.

Wrong,  because finding treasure is not part of sport of fishing,  Which means it is YOU as the one who doesn't understand what the topic of this thread or conversation is about.   Noone is arguing whether luck exists in life buddy.   The point is there are not elements of luck in chess.   Take your fishing for treasure argument somewhere else lol.

Wow you sound like Koshmot now.  So you guys are just gonna claim I'm not addressing your points after I destroy them?  lol  

I sound like everyone, because everyone seems to lay waste to your arguments.  

Again bud,  yes I agree chess has a steep learning curve.    But so does any popular sport.   In fact it can be said physical athletic sports have an even steeper learning curve.   You couldn't even play them at a junior highschool level no matter how much you practiced.   

And yet I played quarterback and defensive end on both sides of the ball for my squadron in the Air Force ...

Look, your childish "my dad can beat up your dad" level of one upsmanship is never going to get you anywhere.  It's transparent, and a little desperate.  You don't know anything about anyone here, really.  You just like to imagine us all in ways that make you feel like you're the better man.  There's a deep-seated reason for that.

 This goes into something else you don't understand,  most people who are fans of sports don't even play them.  You don't have to be good at them to understand or enjoy watching them buddy.

So for you to claim that  chess is not popular is because its hard to master,  is simply wrong.  And the reason you say this clueless nonsense is  to feed your ego and superiority complex,  but you are deluding yourself. 

I said it was not popular because it is less accessible.  Which is obvious to anyone that has watched a WCC match.  Even the commentators have a hard time grappling with things.  You never saw John Madden saying "maybe Joe Montana was thinking this...or maybe it was that...let's run some simulated plays on this football video game and pretend he threw passes to other players instead, since I don't have a lot of real commentary to apply to the game itself right now".  That's what Maurice Ashley does .

Now you can truly ignore someone's points,  and ignore all the reasons I previously stated chess is unpopular....  lack of luck not being one of them.

He’s making a parallel, coolout. His comparison is justified.

”Yeah and the fisherman couldve prevented himself going to this fishing spot where he found a treasure”

The difference is, the treasure being there is random. You did not know about it, you just stumbled upon it. That makes it lucky. The queen being there to prevent the knight is not random, since you placed it there yourself. The reason is irrelevant.

Ah, y’know what, you’re right. I don’t think that I’m furthering the problem by a wide margin, but any margin at all is a problem for me.

Curious, do you know the word for discrimination against a nation? I sure as heck don’t.

Yet, you assertively declared that there was one. Surely you could find it if you looked.

To be against Americans is called anti-American. To fear people from another country is called xenophobia.

Let me give you an example you can't go through with sentences that make no sense like that last one.

Magnus Carsen makes a queen move with a purpose to pressure a pawn. After this both players play a series of 10 top engine moves that lead to a position Magnus did not predict when he made this queen move. Now that its on the board we see that Magnuses queen move prevents a vital knight move by his opponent and thus positiob is winning. Now we have a situation where a move was played for one reason but it ended up being the winning move for a reason neither player could predict after a forcing sequence. You don't think this could be considered lucky? 

Ill give you another example outside chess. You go fishing to an unknown location with a purpose to get some food on the table. Because of this choice you find a treasure from this location. Luck or not? Both examples have a similar narrarive.

alaahahahaha.  Please stop my stomach is hurting.  Holy Cow the lengths...    First of all.  preventing a knight move is a part of a chess game.    Finding treasure is not part of the sport of fishing.    I'm just going to keep saying it dude,  and you will just keep sounding crazier and crazier.  

By this same argument, you could argue that having a knight on an unassailable outpost on the 6th rank causes all kinds of unforeseen "luck" in almost every game where it occurs.  I mean, the player didn't know with certainty that having a knight there would bear any fruit.  But of course, it's not really luck to post the knight there...it's skill.

Is a player that develops rapidly and centralizes their pieces "lucky" when a double attack that cannot be handled by the opponent finally present itself?  No, they are not.  Can the player predict with certainly where the break will come later on?  No, they can't.

Unknown outcomes != luck.  There's some overlap, but these are different mathematical sets.