Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

I was away all yesterday and couldn't reply; but it's given me the chance to get an overview.

In describing chess to beginners or non-players, it's often said that there's no luck in chess, because in chess, the game situation is at all times fully visible. To interpret this as "no luck" is of course mistaken, since the position is visible but it isn't fully understandable. If it were fully understandable to all, then all players would automatically draw, which is the optimum output for anyone who isn't arguing, for the sake of amusement, that chess is actually a win. Even the most advanced players do not fully understand positions, although they are fully visible on the board. Otherwise, they wouldn't blunder, which they do. At the highest level, a blunder could be said to be a misinterpretation of the position.

The problem here is your premise that "not understandable" = "lucky".  If you round a turn and suddenly see a cow in the road on rainy day, and hit your brakes and your car starts hydroplaning, and goes into a ditch...is that unlucky?  Now, take the same scenario, but add antilock brakes.  You don't go into the ditch.  Is that lucky?  To go further...you are incapable of understanding/duplicating the exact calculations the anti-lock brakes are making when they pulse the brakes...so are anti-lock braking systems as a whole therefore a representation and manifestation of luck whenever they operate?

You as a human being take the outcome of anti-lock brakes in operation as a given, but don't assign it to luck.  The same way that you can take the outcome of a chess game that you don't understand fully as a given, and not assign it to luck.  

"At the highest level, a blunder could be said to be a misinterpretation of the position."

Which would be a lack of skill, not luck...even if that misinterpretation results from extenuating factors in your mind like the "fly in your ear" example you floated a few days ago.

So we have people arguing that there's no luck in chess. It is clear they must have a charming faith in the over-simplified argument that it is because the board position is available at all times. Maybe, it's because they fail to be sufficiently critical of the simplistic, idealised argument that luck is wholly absent due to information being notionally available. That is, unless an emotional attachment to the belief in "no luck" results in a simple refusal to consider the alternatives. This may be the result of a mutually reinforced intellectual blockage. That is, emotions and reason conspire to reinforce one-another; whereas reason SHOULD be challenging emotion in a healthy individual: but maybe that's tresspassing too far into psychological realms.

Or maybe it's just bollocks .  "Mutually reinforced intellectual blockage"?  Luck as many are trying to definite it here is a perception human beings have of being affected positively or negatively by a capricious universe.  So if anything is going to have an emotional attachment...it's that.

It's possible to construct many varieties of hypothetical situation, which will show, convincingly, that there is luck in chess. Previously I demonstrated one of them. It's perfectly fine to apply hypothetical situations, since the thesis or proposal that no luck exists in chess is itself wholly hypothetical. It cannot be argued for on a scientific basis, because there is no evidence for it. In fact, the only evidence for it consists of the strong beliefs of some people, together with a grossly oversimplified depiction and argument.

Luck or chance cannot be separated from life in general. If chance exists: and quantum physicists usually say it does, whilst ordinary people pretty much know it does: then it subsists in all aspects of reality. Even including the game of chess. Summing up, the idea that there can be no luck in chess is a simplistic misinterpretation of the fact that the position is visible and so no information is obscured. Perhaps it is one that can only be insisted upon by children.

Thats actually something said about humans.  So again just shows expressions are not to be taken literally.  Thankyou for that perfect example.   I hope everyone is paying attention to it. 

Paying attention would only apply here to you taking a joke (and one with a joking emoji attached, even) as a literal position.
Again,  humans are not robots,  which is an important distinction.  Bots playing each other are not applicable to the discussion.  Because it does not negate the fact many players win more with black my friend.

Robots?  Are we 5 year olds?  Whether a player is human or engine is actually irrelevant to this topic.  

You know exactly what I mean, so does everyone else.  But to reword it,   the definition of luck only applies to humans.  I still don't believe you're an english teacher.  I think thats a lie.  lol

Actually, they don't know exactly what you mean. It has to be worked out, in the context of other remarks.

You ought to try to be clearer, because your remark there would easily lead people to think that games are only won and lost by luck. The logical point that makes it slightly clearer is based on your apparent belief that luck and chance are different from one-another and that luck applies to humans and chance doesn't. That in itself seems to be just something you made up. Yet you also claim that chess cannot be lucky because it involves human actions. That strongly suggests that you think no luck is involved in human actions. So it was a volte face.

Your ideas and btickler's are as confused as each others.

I'm not an English teacher. I have never led anyone to believe I am.

Anecdotal only, btickler.

If you can learn to make a logical argument, I'll comment on that. I was going to write "logically compelling" but that would have been unfair because impossible.

Chess is not "life in general", and quantum physics doesn't apply to a chess game.  In fact a chess game can be played entirely in the minds of two players...or by two hypothetical beings outside our physical universe entirely, for that matter.

     A chess game CAN be played just in the minds of the two players. My feeling is that the greatest part of any game takes place in the players' minds as the consideration of all the possibilities that did not show up in the actual moves.   

     Unfortunately, this situation is not practical for the overwhelming majority of players. The inability of all but very strong players to keep the position straight in their mind, without any physical reference, would lead to almost every game degenerating into an argument over where the pieces actually are, what moves are possible, whether checkmate had actually occurred, and the like.

     Consequently, everyone relies on boards or computer screens. This brings the contest into the physical universe where random events can affect it. Games are played according to the regulations of the chess organization or website conducting the tournament or game. The players accept the rules of these organizations--time limits, arbiters' deciding conflicts over rules, 50-move and triple-repetition, etc-- as part of the game.

     This is where luck (decisive consequences of random events over which the players have no control) can affect chess. The rare instances of such things as heart attacks at the board, electrical outages causing losses online and other freak occurrences) are the only things I have claimed as luck existing in chess, but it cannot be denied that such things happen.

Competitive tournament rules are not part of the game of chess.  They are layered on top of chess.

But although it is part of the game they are playing, that does not mean that it is part of chess, which is a more fundamental thing than just that one game under particular competition rules.

    Yet the players HAVE accepted those rules as PART of the game of chess they are playing. When these rules, no matter how insignificant an observer may think they are, DETERMINE the outcome of the contest they have indeed affected the game.

This thread has always been about whether there is luck in the game of chess...that is, fundamentally inherent to the game itself.  The definitions of luck are under debate, and the distinction of "in" has been made, and the definition of a chess game has also been discussed.  I guess we could start talking about what "such thing" is defined as?

     I simply don't agree with your stricture as to what is "in" chess. Will you claim that the recent world championship match wasn't really chess as these "non-chess" rules were in effect? No matter how we might like to idealize chess as a pure self-contained esoteric entity divorced from  mundane reality, the games take place in the real world and real-world events DO impact the play.

well if you can't even explain your accusations  i'm not surprised,  because it means you don't even understand what YOU mean lol.    I'll never forget how dishonest you were for only posting a 3rd of the cambridge definition of luck as it applies to gaming,  so you could dishonestly try to prove chance and luck mean the same things.       IMO,  its because to do so relieves you of any guilt for the way you disrespect chess,  by for example by going on and on about how its not a sport in other threads.

Many people have their motives in this thread.  They want to relieve their conscious for believing lower rated players only win by luck to back up their belief chess is too hard for society to understand,  or they think players should resign in losing positions or that flagging should not be a part of the game, or their belief that speed chess is not real chess,   etc....

Google "games with no luck involved" and tell us what you get .

Also, Combinatorial Game Theory might be of some interest to you...

you can increase your chances to win.  That is different then luck.  You are describing skill from practice and knowlege.