Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Not if your P and Q are both S...

As I already pointed out, using a procedure correctly to process faulty information doesn't mean anything. 

"Sir, a point of parliamentary procedure if you please..."

"Go ahead.  You have the floor."

"I would like to move that we adjourned 45 minutes ago and are canoodling with our partners right now."

[...]

Yes, so you are rejecting the statement not the logic, as I pointed out in my post #1527. That is an important distinction if you are claiming something doesn't follow. 

"If it's sunny, then it's Tuesday" is a false statement, but if you follow the logic, then the conclusion "It's Tuesday" to the hypothesis "It's sunny" must follow. 

And yet is perfectly acceptable to say that "if it's sunny, then it's Tuesday" does not follow.  Good luck trying to find someone to agree with you that my response is just unacceptable somehow...of course, actually finding someone would be skillful...

LOL,  so in other words the definition of luck is wrong?  You were  the one who said any definition can't be true unless its universally accepted and stated word for word from an accepted definition?  Even though I was using the first result on google,   but you want us to believe some quacks because you are using big fancy words and defintions you can't even explain yourself?     Here is the cambridge definition  "the force that causes things, especially good things, to happen to you by chance and not as a result of your own efforts or abilities"   

This whole post about you arguing that the universally accepted definition is wrong, according to these con artist staticians you are citing,   is now you being a complete and utter hypocrite.  
 
And you are ignoring the fact that you stopped replying after I rebutted your argument about the google definition of  luck and what "ones own actions" means.   Thats the only thing you could argue. and you gave up afterwards.    Here cambridge  definition puts it more specifically.  And you can't claim I made this up.   it means ones own "efforts" or "abilities"    the results from pulling the lever on a slot machine or rolling dice,  are not outcomes influenced by ones own abilities.   aka skill-set as you call it.   Period.  

And my friend,  you've given no links on any such thing about luck.   You tell me skill is measured by luck and I just gave you the ELO equation that shows no such thing.   You think chance = luck.  But chance is just chance.   Its not necessarily good or bad,  and its not necessarily resulting from your own actions, efforts or abilities.  refer again to the above definition.  

Are you now claiming that the glicko and ELO skill ratings,  are not really applicable skill ratings.   You can do it better by measuring against some imaginary force that causes bad or good things?  

And Your last point directly relates to this exact point.  THE ACTION THAT BOUGHT ABOUT THE RESULT.    Now think about this hard my friend,  because it is an impoartant part of the  definition of the word luck, and it is this very premise that you are contradicting.  This is the thread that unravels your whole argument, even though you try to convince us you are adhering to it.     Refer to my first point here and realize why you are contradicting it.  Let me reiterate some hints.   "good or bad results"   " From ones own actions"   "Random Chance does not equal good or bad luck,  if not caused by ones own actions for an inherently successful or failed outcome"


The example I keep providing,  is the random choosing of ones colors in chess is the ONLY element of random chance not from ones own actions that is part of a chess game.   But it is still not luck,  because black or white pieces are not inherently bad or good.   They don't dictate sucess or failure because that still depends on the skill of the player and the colors make no difference.

So this is what you are left with?  Simply denying you said anything?  All this means is you concede everything I've pointed out regarding the definition of luck and skill and how it applies to chess.   I accept your concession buddy,  there is nothing else I can do.

You are describing mathematicians. Your apparent lack of understanding is why I said that you reject propositional logic

See the difference bud?  I'm sincere,  you are not.   I made many points and you are now conceding them refusing to even address them.  Claiming I'm attributing claims to you, that you have not,  which is just an excuse to avoid having the debate.    But we will let those in the shadows be the judge.  I'm not here to change your mind,  only to counter your false narrative.    

I accept another concession from you.

     This is why there is so much wrangling over definitions here. I assure you that a majority of the posters here disagree with you. 

     Making a move without knowing why you are doing it is just poor play. 

Well I certainly agree with Kotshmot and think he explained it very well.

I would add that the idea of not knowing why you are doing a move is the wrong way of looking at it.

In most points in a game, nobody, not even a grandmaster, can calculate all the way out to mate or a forced draw. Every move you make will have ripple effects that you have not calculated out yet. 

Of course, as you improve at chess you are far less likely to be surprised by ripple effects but they are never eliminated entirely. Heck, even Stockfish is not determinstic. 

     This is why there is so much wrangling over definitions here. I assure you that a majority of the posters here disagree with you. 

     Making a move without knowing why you are doing it is just poor play. If you can't figure out a good plan, come up with moves to implement it, and calculate what the likely outcome will be, you will wind up losing unless your opponent is doing an even worse job.

     Choosing to make particular moved is considered skill by most here. Those who choose better achieve better results. As you note, strong players don't make random moves. They make mistakes,everyone does, but that's not luck. Even in your example of someone not knowing what to do and just making a "random" move there is SOMETHING about that move that prompts the player to choose it. Maybe it reminds them of something they saw in a different game, maybe it just seems safer than other candidate moves, maybe the possible benefits appear greater should things work. If you just list all possible moves on paper, spin a dial and make whatever move it points to--truly random selection--I'm sure you agree that the odds against will be overwhelming.

You miss the point completely here. The point is that in complicated positions a move or a sequence of moves cannot be accurately calculated till the end of the line because there are almost endless variables. This doesn't mean a move is random, it can be a move calculated by Magnus Carlsen, but after a series of 10 moves this particular move still can have effects that weren't predicted. This is how chess works.

That's because GMs, and engines, are lacking the skill to calculate further, not because they are lucky or unlucky.  Just because they are sitting at the top of the skill tree currently doesn't mean everything beyond that suddenly becomes "luck" anymore than the things we don't understand yet become "supernatural".  That's a typical human perspective. 

"Well, if we can't do it, it's not do-able.  After all, the universe is built for us and we are its prime inhabitants.".

If an asteroid slams into earth and kills us all next week that is not luck, that is simply a lack of timely information.

We don't know much about chess.  In the history of chess, the number of games played only hits the trillions (and that's generous).  There are more than 10^44 possible positions, never mind move orders that blow that number way out past the number of particles in the known universe.

The only way the luck crowd wins this argument is if they define luck as a kind of magic that drives unknown outcomes.  Lack of perfect knowledge != luck.  If you can even posit an entity that can play perfect chess and win or draw every single game, then you don't believe in the luck argument you think you do .

There's a simple reason that games like checkers, chess, go, and tic-tac-toe can be solved, but games like Life and Candyland cannot.  Chess is a game of Perfect Information, and if you had it, you could never lose (other than by color selection if chess turns out to be a forced win for white (or even black)).  The only reason that is true is *because there's no luck in the game of chess*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information

You are saying some facts here but your train of thought is wrong and you make the wrong conclusions.

Yes, luck exists in the game strictly because engines and humans are unable to solve chess - so your argument here is but it could be solved/calculated further to prevent these lucky events, therefore its just lack of skill. But no, as I said before skill level isnt a factor in this argument. If there is a situation where I am not able to calculate a move and it ends up causing unpredicted advantage for one player, this is a lucky event. Lack of skill vs skill element coexists with the element of luck.

Damn,  english not being my first language causes some struggle trying to get the thought process written out correctly lol.

Let me restate this important point for you since your head is probalby exploding.  This is for crazy patriots benefit too.   

" The difference with dice rolls,  is again no amount of skill can influence a successful outcome.  That is the point of saying the results of some "force"   rather then ones "own action"  or even better  "Ability"  as in the cambridge definition.     When you pull a slot machine lever,  are you saying the results are from your own action?  Absolutely not,  the slot machine is a randomizing device and the positive or negative outcome is not a result of your own action."

Don't sweat it.  Your position is easily summarized:

Complexity that obfuscates outcomes = luck.

"Your train of thought is wrong and you make the wrong conclusions" . 

That definition only works for the definition of perceived luck/random occurrences.  But of course, those occurrences are not actually random just because a human being cannot work out how they came to be. 

If you wish to amend your argument to:  "humans will always perceive luck when things are too complex for them to understand", then I'll be happy to agree with you.

But thats not true,  not in the slightest.   You admit it has a 0 probability.   The reason why is because chess has no elements of luck and is based purely on skill.   And even if the GM was sick and his mind was deteriorating,  that just mean his skill deteriorated.  AKA Human ability.   IT would be considered lucky if his opponent was randomly chosen and he was paired with a GM who had suddenly lost his mind rather then someone currently more skilled.   But is that luck thats a part of a chess game?   No.  

There seems to be separate arguments here,  People who are arguing there is luck in life which can affect chess, which is not a topic of this thread and should be self evident.     And those who are arguing that humans themselves are randomizing devices who give themselves bad or good luck and therefore are part of the game of chess.   Or that random chance and luck are the same thing.   

Problem is the latter two points are flawed because they contradict the very definitions of the words, luck, skill and  chance.    IMO,  it is exposing the the lengths people will go to when lying to themselves to  support other beliefs that claiming luck in chess would support.

I perfectly understood that you don't realize that skill is the antithesis to luck.  When the definition of luck says a force causing sucess or failure, not caused by human ability, action, or efforts.    That is referring to skill.     When you say luck IS caused by human ability, action or efforts,  you are contradicting the universally accepted definition of the word you are arguing about.