Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

As Justin said, the topic. Which is luck in chess. To discuss that and compare, you compared it to boxing. You said heart attacks are not part of boxing. You also said these kinds of injuries do not happen during the boxing match. I don't know why you would say that when the opposite is true. It's merely bad luck on the part of the boxer who drops dead of a heart attack. 

And yes, injuries ARE part of the design of boxing. One could even say the design of chess includes luck. Because often someone (like me) will have no idea where to move. I might have two identical moves to choose from. I could literally toss a coin or otherwise randomly select a move. There is no skill in choosing between two things that are identical. If 40 moves later that move turned out to be good, that is what I would consider good luck. Because I used no skill, talent, or ability in choosing it.

This made me laugh. Not just because it's true, but because I was picturing you actually typing that. 

Sometimes what he says reminds me of the newscast scene in Bruce Almighty. With Evan Baxter trying to explain something. 

I'm posting this again for Coolouts convenience. Contrary to this belief that there is no skill in dice, isn't it true that experiments have been made and isn't it scientifically proven that skill IS a small determining factor in the results of dice rolls?

I think there is very little success in manipulating dice rolls, but there is some amount more than zero. Just like luck in chess. Very little, but an amount more than zero. 

Why would manipulating the dice be considered cheating? So you are saying it's NOT true that skill is a small determining factor on the results of dice rolls? Shouldn't you at least find out before claiming that? 

I don't think it's that difficult to comprehend that dice is a game of chance, but there is a small amount of skill involved. Just as it's not difficult to comprehend chess is a game of skill, but there is a small amount of luck involved. 

There are good moves and bad moves and sometimes we choose the bad moves, some people will call that luck and others wouldn't

Occam's Razor applies.  If 15 people say 1 person is delusional and that 1 person says those 15 people are delusional, which is more likely the truth?

I don't really care what "people" mean by luck.  In the context of chess, I care what game designers mean by luck.  I did not say the universe is deterministic, that's a straw man on your part. 

There are random occurrences in the universe, but not in a game of chess once color selection is done.  A chess game is a logical construct that can exist inside our universe, or outside it.  No laws of physics required.  

"In my experience there is no such thing as luck" - Obi Wan Kenobi ( meaning wise mentor).

people refer to luck as having something good happen more than expected, or if not expected. really, winning is not luck. It just happenes. That's all.

You keep repeating this, but white has a demonstrably and well-documented higher win percentage than black by virtue of the first move advantage, so...reality check time.

Luck doesn't exist, because it is merely a subjective interpretation of past events, only after the outcome is apparent. As the outcome of a past event changes, the interpretation of that outcome could change from 'good' to 'bad'.

For example, imagine you wanted to go on a road trip with your friends, but the car was too small, so one of you had to stay behind. You draw straws, and end up losing. You attribute your loss to 'bad luck', because you would rather go on the road trip. You then end up meeting your future wife that weekend because you didn't go on the road trip. Now you say that drawing the shortest straw was 'good luck'. You then have a horrible marriage, end up getting divorced, and hate your life. At this point, you say that drawing the shortest straw was, once again, 'bad luck'.

The point is, using the terms 'good luck' and 'bad luck', are merely a way of expressing your interpretation of the consequences of a certain event

another example reason why luck doesn't exist: 

Imagine you've bought a lottery ticket. But 5000 people have participated. Then you win. Is it good luck that you won. No, simply because someone was bound to win.

Also I believe we have free will. But the future is all ready planned out. You may say that's impossible, but that is the great mystery. We humans cannot understand it in an earthly scientific sense. 

This is the best argument for no luck in my opinion

Don't credit me, I didn't write it. It's from reddit, but I wanted to post it here to show you guys there is no such thing as luck.

Then why would the people who have studied it say the opposite of you? InsideScience quoted a number of people who have conducted experiments and they say there is a small amount of skill involved in dice throwing results. They say the most important factor is the initial position of the dice. They said "the top face will always be more probable". They used the word probable. 

And why do casinos fill up the little holes on dice to make them evenly weighted? If throwing dice were completely random, there would be no need right?

I don't think anyone believes there is a great deal of skill in dice throwing results. But there is more than a zero amount. It might be possible that the multi billion dollar a year gaming industry knows something you don't. If they universally accept that skilled dice throwing can affect results, maybe you could consider it too. 

Or, you could just tell them (and those who conducted the experiments) that they are all wrong, and you are right. 

It's a good refutation of the more poetic version of luck...that, is a perception of a random occurrence relative to the perceiver.

Luck in game design has an objective value and is purposefully designed into a game, not a subjective perception.

I agree with you that it has an objective value which is why I don't accept the argument, I just think it is the best one put forth

That's your answer??? The entire gaming industry, as well as the people who have studied the matter are fraudulent and just doing it for job security??

It sounds to me like you have no idea how you are going to back out of the spot you put yourself in. 

So here is a follow up question for you. You said manipulating the dice would be cheating. If throwing dice is completely random, as you said, how could anyone cheat by throwing them a certain way? Because you also said absolutely no skill is involved. 

I didn't expect an answer, because you have contradicted yourself so much you probably don't even know where to start. 

You said manipulating the dice is cheating. It is not. Playing with loaded dice is cheating, using practiced techniques for rolling dice is not cheating. So the question, again, how is manipulating dice rolls through technique cheating if dice rolls are completely random?

It sounds to me like you are sticking with your positions. That a) dice rolls are completely random and zero skill is involved. and b) manipulating the dice through technique or skill is cheating.

Does that seem like a credible position to take?