Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

The example that I gave was very specific and this did not address it at all. If you make good move but you have no idea why it's good, no skill is involved in making this move at all. Yet it can win the game on the spot.

I just addressed it.  There's rarely if ever a move where the player is actually choosing without any reason whatsoever.  If two players who are not very skilled plod along at low skill, and a mate eventually results, that's not luck...even if the players involved cannot articulate their reasoning, or even if they cannot find the mate again.  If you ask me to talk about oranges, and then later ask "well what about the purple oranges?", I'm going to answer "there are no purple oranges, unless you paint one purple to make an argument...".

If you want to posit a game where a random number generator selects between all legal moves, that would be luck...but that's also not really "playing" chess anymore at that point.  It's actually an abdication of playing the game .

I also covered this in my response to the "What if a move only turns out to be strong 10 moves later?" scenario, in a prior post.

Reasons are the stories we tell ourselves and others to justify actions but our brains are much more complex than just reasoning. We evaluate all present information referenced against experience. It would be impossible to explain, even to ourselves, how every factor in our evaluation, interacts with a decision.

What I'm arguing is that there are scenarios in chess where you make an objectively good move for the wrong reason and since the correct idea was missed, the move turns out to be completely random. For example the reason why you made this move could be objectively bad, maybe there was an easy defence against your threat that you missed.

My argument is that this scenario can be compared to one where a random number generator chose the move, as there were no correct ideas behind choosing the move but it turned out good.

An objectively good move chosen for the wrong reason = an objectively good move chosen by random number generator

I occasionally win games because I blundered, in that I made a move I rejected and that move turns out to be strong. Occasionally, I've won, not because the move was "objectively" strong, but because the move I rejected introduces potentially favourable complications. Looking at it afterwards, it's been possible to determine that I probably wouldn't have won the game, had it not been for the error, even though the move was weak. Occasionally, it seems that my unconscious mind has done things that I've consciously rejected and I've benefitted from it. If I'd made that choice consciously, on a percentage basis, maybe it would have been down to skill. However, playing a move that has been consciously rejected, which effectively wins the game, certainly cannot be shown not to contain an element that we would probably call "luck".

That whole paragraph is describing choices based on skill or lack thereof.  Also, note your lack of inclusion of the other player's skill in your assessment of the outcome.

You can make make lots of bad choices and still win if your opponent does likewise.  No luck involved.

Therefore those claiming that chess is a game of skill and therefore contains no elements of luck are wrong. They should learn from stronger arguments rather than trying to stick to non-workable "principles". Trying to claim that luck doesn't exist in chess beyond colour selection is an attempt to claim an absolute. It is an attempt to build an ideal picture, where luck and skill are forever seperate from one-another, and moreover, to pretend that the real World therefore follows the principles of the Ideal. Science doesn't work like that, at all. Yes, science attempts to seperate variables and constants, so they may be assessed and measured. However, it doesn't then insist that the World should follow the principle that those factors are, from then on, dissected from one-another in reality. Perhaps anyone with any sense will accept this argument and learn from it, by realising that many such arguments can be made, which show that it is impossible to verify that chance does not play its part in obtaining the result of a chess game.

You haven't made an argument that luck doesn't exist in chess, however. You've cited a few instances where we can ascribe some level of skill to situations where a player makes a sort of reflex move. There are so many situations where genuine chance or luck, because effectively they're the same thing, can alter a result in a game of chess. Many examples have been presented. Can't quite understand why you and Coolout are fighting.

There's a missing post.

In a nutshell, in order to make, successfully, an argument that there's no luck in chess, it's necessary to find some means to demonstrate the truth of such a claim.

It isn't sufficient to show that skill is present for all scenarios, even if one can do that. It is necessary to show that luck is absent from all scenarios.

Except that one is based on lack of skill and the choice of a player, and one is chosen by a random number generator.  It's a pretty clear distinction.  Decision/choice vs. no decision/choice.

You don't seem to understand what exercised skill is in sports.  Like sharpened reflexes and muscle memory, sometimes its not even a matter of just not knowing why,  its not even knowing when you are doing them.    Magnus himself says he is good at speed chess because his intuition comes from experience and knowledge.    Players "guessing" at moves are still making educated guesses based on their limited abilities and knowledge which is a measure of skill,  not luck.  Human force as the reason for the positive or negative results negates the very definition of the word luck.  You can't determine what is luck, if not only you don't know the definition,  but can't determine its antithesis which is skill.

its extremely relevant to your false premise because those things are considered skill,  even when players don't plan for them.   As btickler also explained.  And as my Magnus quote accentuates with intuition in regards to speed chess.   But my example goes even further then them,  because I'm explaining they are also considered skill even when the player is not even conscious of his actions.

You deny all this because  you are disregarding the very definition of the word where the positive or negative results determined from human force constitutes skill, not luck.

It is a clear distinction but this still doesn't support your stance on this topic and it's a pretty worthless point to mention here in terms of relevancy.

For luck to NOT be involved, a good move can't be based on LACK of skill. This is the whole reason I made the comparison and you apparently missed it.

Apparently you are still on the "luck and skill are opposite ends of the same spectrum" wagon train.  I am not.  I notice you haven't addressed the breakdown of games into low to high skill vs. low to high luck, and how they co-exist because they are not the same thing.  Nor has anyone else.  The reason is simple...it busts the "when we can't see an outcome coming, that is luck" argument. 

Your argument is that lack of skill leaves a vacuum that is ergo filled by "luck", but it is only filled with uncertainty, nothing else, by virtue of chess moves being skill-based decisions.  My argument is that that's a mis-use of the word and that lack of skill is just that...lack of skill.

There is definitely something wrong with you if you are arguing with koshmot that there is no skill in chess,  and then arguing with me that there is.  wow.   I've never seen a worse troll in a gaming community then you.  In fact I don't even think these conversations exist in any gaming community but a chess one lol.  

There's definitely something wrong with you, if you interpret my post that way.  Your comprehension level is in the sewers.

Again,  the only element of random chance  in the game of chess is the choosing of ones colors.  But it is not luck because the colors don't determine success or failure.

As already proven to you, getting white will statistically win you up to 5% more games. So, by force, the random chance becomes "lucky" to one player at that point.  You're still the only person trying to claim that color selection is not a boon for either player.  That's because you are dead wrong.

And I never said that lack of skill means something is luck.   IT all depends on the context,  and we are applying these definitions to gaming specifically.   

Absolutely. The two of you are making the same arguments, using the same wording and are pretending to fight with one-another.

Yes you did get my argument right.

So going by what you are saying, it's correct to say that "I won the game by my lack of skill." There is no word to use in this context as two players with equal display of skill have still one player winning the game. If skill difference didn't decide the game, I think it's incorrect to just use "lack of skill".

All the same, it's remarkable that you and Coolout are having such a long-running battle and yet your opinions and Coolout's, on this matter of skill and luck, are completely identical.

Except that they aren't, which you didn't even attempt to refute.  Good choice...since there's no refutation.

Since your opinions are identical to one-another's, why do you fight?

That's like asking why Charles Manson and Jon Stewart would fight if they both like ice cream, but one likes chunky monkey and the other likes gelato.

Regarding your attempted refutations of what I'm saying, again, your confidence is extremely high but there's no substance to your answers, which basically consist of dodging this way and that. I'm starting to find it interesting why you react so negatively when I mention my high IQ. I wonder if there's some relevance to this situation, for instance.