Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

This math comparison is a good one.

If I gave you a math exercise to count 1997,997 divided by 299,557 in 15 seconds, I'd take my chances and argue it's impossible for you to calculate it precisely right. What you can do is make an estimate and guess the rest. If you will still get it correct to the desimals, Id argue theres same elements in play as when choosing lottery numbers.

Same thing happens in chess, you physically can't calculate everything and you can still get the right answer. In both math and chess, you could even use the wrong technique and end up with the right answer anyway. It's not skill and if its not luck either, we're missing a word.

Estimation, yes. Precise answer, no. There is no experience, ability, anything in your power to calculate that accurately in 15 seconds. Therefore part of the process is pure guessing, equivalent to choosing numbers for lottery. You could probably estimate it's more than 10 or less than 10, but when you get to the decimals you have to guess without any ability to back you up.

For some wonder kid who can actually make the calculations, yes it is skill.

That is the problem in your thinking that we can conclude. There is indeed human ability in play here when you make an estimation, but then as I explained quite clinically, part of this estimation process is guessing which human ability doesnt account for. Guessing is random. So we have both in play here, human ability AND whatever you want to call the result of the guess. Normal people call it luck, which is accurate. What do you call it then?

Okay, so your argument is that if you're forced calculate ANY math exercise in 15 seconds in your head, the result will always be based on your skill alone and there is no random guessing? I wonder which ability do you use to calculate numbers up to 20 decimals in 15 seconds.

Also just because I use a succesful attempt in my example doesn't mean that skill only plays a role in a succesfull attempt, you made that up. It just makes the example easier for anyone to understand.

Okay, if we can't agree on a simple fact like this there is no debate to be had. What you're saying in your quoted argument here equals to water in not wet.

The problem is far from anything definition related. The definitions are based on facts and use cases for the word, but you either wont accept or dont understand the practical facts so there is no definition to debate.

Philosophically there is no doubt that luck exists, but as evidenced by the heated discussion in this thread, there isn't always consensus on what is or isn't lucky. I don't want to get involved in arguments over definitions but there are some related things which I want to mention which are of practical importance. To consider an individual event lucky removes agency and in the case of Chess is likely to suppress a learning opportunity by preventing the analysis of what each player did right and wrong. Psychologically, to consider oneself lucky or unlucky could lead to recklessness or become a self fulfilling prophecy respectively and in the extreme, to believe that you are fundamentally unlucky will lead to a debilitating learned helplessness and superstition.

To say "Luck does/doesn't exist" is an oxymoronic statement.

Luck is the absence of anything which exists.

A good articulation of why I am still debating this topic.

I would agree with this.  The lack of a word that means "showing skill along the spectrum of skill in lower amounts" is a big part of the issue here.  When using "lack of skill", many interpret it as an absolute absence of skill, so...the phrase is lacking something ...and as that very phrase illustrates, "lacking" is a spectrum, not a binary on/off switch.

Lack of skill in the context of this discussion = "showing relatively less skill than some other display of skill", not "zero skill".  Conversely, saying "skill" does not equal "perfect skill".

In human affairs, it's interesting that people will accept the argument that human beings cannot have perfect skill, but they bridle at the notion that humans similarly cannot have a complete lack of skill in an action they may decide to take that involves usign judgment (bodily and/or mentally).

Anyway, this was a good conclusion, not sure why you abandoned it today.

What? So if I say winning a million dollar prize draw is "lucky", that means a denial of everything?

     First you claim to know what ALL athletes mean by getting lucky. Then you admit that sometimes they mean something you don't agree with, so of course they must be wrong. These athletes are the ones with the skills that are out on the field making the plays. Their judgements in this area are far superior to yours. They know the limits of their own and their opponents' skills and I trust their judgement rather than yours--just as you constantly refer to the opinions of a handful of GMs as PROOF of your opinions as they are the experts. Listen to these expert athletes concerning their own games.

I always wear my lucky briefs when I play in tournaments. They haven’t seen soap in more than a decade.

hehe! this reminds me of baseball players and their lucky socks. or tim robbins in bull durham wearing ladies underwear!

Baseball players have always inspired me. As a young white boy growing up in the gated projects, I looked to Willie Mays as my role model.

That's a really good point. I asked some time ago if luck exists in chess, then does it exist when two computers play? Because at that point it becomes more math like. But as Optimissed said, humans had to program the computers, so there is still something someone could have done, even without knowing it, while programming the computers. Or even more possible, something could have happened, outside the control of the computer programmers, that affected the ability of one or more computers. 

But when two people play chess, it's not just math. I think that would be impossible because no human brain can operate in a completely math like state. There is always going to be some unforeseen random thought or action that unpredictably enters the situation. 

I think that's part of the reason computers are so much better than people at math. They are able to crunch much bigger numbers and do it faster, but there is also less luck involved. I think it's fair to say people are luckier than computers. 

So much for lucky dogs, then?

Engines win with black against other comparably rated engines even more rarely than the best humans, so it stands to reason that getting assigned white for a game between engines is even luckier for engines than for humans.

TBH, I rarely know what you mean. Between the contradictions and outright falsehoods, I have a hard time figuring out what you really mean. Sometimes you just take a collection of words and toss them up in the air and hope they land in a way that makes sense. That's my own failing I guess. Maybe I need a translator.      You should consider running for president. 

Good question, 

I think it is hard to argue that there isn't luck in chess when you look at a single game. Here are a few examples. 

It is your turn and you have narrowed down your options to 3 candidate moves, but you are unable to work out which is best and so you choose one at random.  Move 1 = +1.25, Move 2 = +1.75 and Move 3 = -1.5.  Luck in this scenario will determine how good your move is. 

Against a known opponent, you have studied their play and see that 90% of the time (from a good sample), they fall for trap X. If you attempt to play Trap X, luck will be a factor in whether they fall for it on this occasion. 

Another way to look at it is, if there was no luck involved in a single game, the highest rank player would win every time (assuming ratings are accurate) , but this is not the case. 

All that said, long term in Chess, there is very little luck involved, when you look at someone who has a decent sample of games for example, and they have a particular rating, luck will have played almost no part in what their current rating is as it will have evened out across the games.