Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Any loss of any GM to any real beginner is going to be due to lapse of skill on the GM's part (such as missing a back rank mate in one or the like), not because the beginner choose the top engine moves "randomly" for 40 moves in a row.

Of course. But this theoretical thinking will help you materialize the role of luck in chess. There is a realistic probability for any beginner to play one stockfish move in a game without understanding the true effects of the move. This means a probability (alltho unrealistic) exists for a beginner to hit your example of 40 engine moves in a row. Im sure everyone would agree this would showcase extreme luck. We might not see this happen in a couple life times, but more common examples of this same effect happen in every game, maybe not always in decisive fashion.

I would say the putt Sam Burns just made to win at Colonial was a little bit lucky. 38 feet from off the green. Nobody expects to make a putt like that. 

Of course it was skill, just not 100% skill. Nobody expects to make putts like that. It's skill that he gets it close, but a little bit of luck that makes it drop.

A gust of wind after he hits it, a bug lands on the ball, the smallest things can make a big difference. There have even been times shade allows the ball to fall in the hole. That's right, shade. A player will hit a putt that ends up on the edge of the hole. But environmental conditions (that no human has control over) can take over and determine the outcome. Such as just the right humidity, causing the grass to wilt in the shade under the golf ball. Allowing the ball to move just a fraction of a millimeter, dropping in. There is zero skill involved in scenarios like that. 

I just explained, in detail, how its luck. No player, human or machine, is good enough to calculate or execute a shot that can land on the edge of the hole, within a fraction of a millimeter, knowing that environmental conditions may or may not allow the ball to drop. It's literally impossible. It comes down to pure luck if the ball drops or not. 

If they were that good, why not just hit it the hole? It's over 4 inches wide. Just hit in the hole from, say, 30 feet? What is the point of intentionally missing the 4 inch target but instead, hit it the perfect distance, the perfect speed, so that it stops on a razors edge, knowing that it may NOT drop? That seems kinda silly don't you think? Are you saying they are good enough to hit it within a fraction of a millimeter but NOT good enough to hit a 4 inch target?? How does that work?

Given an "infinite" number of games, a beginner will, with 100% certainty,  beat Magnus, even if Magnus plays his best. There is some large number of games, given which, a beginner will have an even chance of winning one, even if Magnus is at his best. Again, statistical fact. 

If anyone cares, I am an engineer. (Carnegie-Mellon U)  2 years of calculus and lots of statistics, so this is not just opinion. It is the odd mathematics of large numbers. If this doesn't make sense to you, please consult some sources you may trust before flaming me here. 

     Then let's take all consideration of human abilities out of the equation. We know there are computers that can outplay any human. We also know that these computers do not play PERFECT chess, because improved versions always come along to beat the old programs.

     It would be easy to program a computer to examine all the moves possible in any position and randomly choose one. Should that computer play millions of games vs the top chess computer, Stockfish or Alpha Zero or whatever other you might choose will win virtually every game.

     However, the superior computer is handicapped by the fact that we know that the principles it is following and the techniques it is using will NOT produce PERFECT play. Yet it is certain that eventually, in one singular game, the random computer will produce a string of moves superior to Alpha Zero's and win.

     Had you bet the farm on Alpha Zero in that game that would be bad luck for you.

I stand exactly by what I said, and your lack of decency ("lmao") only shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. I'll define beginner: Anyone whose moves are random, other than complying with the rules of the game".  But I won't respond to you again until you realize that there are people who are educated on this subject and know more than you. In fact, if someone knew nothing about statistics, they would know more than you. What you "know" is wrong.

Chess is pure calculation, which is why chess engines can beat any chess player. When someone loses, it's not due to bad luck, but rather, a series of, or a major miscalculation that led to one being check mated. If there is any luck involved in chess, it would have to be genetics, which explains why some kids become super grandmaster while others have to spend years just to reach a rating of 2000. 

"Nobody's moves are truly random,  otherwise they would not be of their own determination. "

OK then, rather than a beginner, it's a computer that generates totally random, but legal moves. That machine will eventually beat Magnus if they play enough games. Statistical fact. 

PS I can tell from your comments that you've never taken an advanced math class in your life. Or maybe I should say, you've never passed one. 

Without knowing all the details, that just makes logical sense. Highly unlikely a beginner will win or draw any given game, but the possibility exists that it could happen. One in a billion things do happen. I was thinking of this particular example of a beginner playing the world champion. If a computer program existed that nearly identically mimics his play, then pit that program against a beginner program. Run it billions of times and see what happens. I know that's not the same because humans will make silly mistakes or fall victim to luck factors, but still it would be interesting. 

     So are you claiming that the inferior computer was suddenly a genius or more skillful for that one game? Or that the superior computer was tired or ate a bad burrito and didn't play up to its usual standard? 

     The point is that sooner or later random chance will win a game. Let's say it was a human who didn't even see the board, just threw darts at a piece of paper with a list of all possible moves on it, while a GM played against them. The same mathematical principle dictates that the GM WILL eventually lose, even when playing at their best.

     Sometimes sheer luck prevails.

"The point is that sooner or later random chance will win a game. Let's say it was a human who didn't even see the board, just threw darts at a piece of paper with a list of all possible moves on it, while a GM played against them. The same mathematical principle dictates that the GM WILL eventually lose, even when playing at their best.

     Sometimes sheer luck prevails."

Yes, but it's not luck....it's statistics. It's the laws of mathematics. And it's a certainty.

I think if we were all honest with ourselves we would all admit this has happened to all of us. At some point we have been faced with a situation where a move is truly random. Like you said, throw darts at a piece of paper, coin toss, whatever it might be. We just moved because it was our turn, and, the move was legal. Those were the only two considerations. 

I still think this happens more with beginners, but I know (for a fact from personal experience) it does happen. 

That makes sense. I think that when statistics happen to benefit you, when they happen at the right place, at the right time, most people call that luck. 

Maybe we have a new definition of luck. Statistics. 

OK. I would still call it luck. If something good happens, at the right place, at the right time, there is a high probability I would call that luck over statistics or probability. 

A lot of people will say things like "what a lucky shot" or "it was pure luck you picked the right lottery numbers". I know I don't talk about probability if something lucky happens. 

Brother, with all due respect, you are confusing "luck" with "causality". If someone is born rich, that is luck. It is luck because such a fortune is brought by chance and not by that individual's actions. On the other hand, when someone gets checkmated, it did not happen due to chance but a series of causes and effects initiated by an individual's actions. If you still want to continue this line of argument, it's best if you define your terms. 

     Yes, but it won't be necessary to play the whole near-infinite number of games for the win to occur. It is just likely to happen in the first game as in the 100,000,000th.

     The point is that such a random event's inevitability points out that there is a small soupcon of luck in the game.

"To be fair, an infinite number of chess games is an impossibility and to reach an infinite number, I think a player would have to play at least several games of chess a day for several centuries. That isn't going to happen and so it's irrelevant to any real situation! "

Actually, 100 games a day for a thousand centuries would not get you anywhere close to infinity.  Infinity is an endless number of games.....never stopping....ever.....with no limit.  It's kind of a hard concept to grasp. Your mind tries to get around it but imagining a BIG quantity, but as big as you can imagine isn't close. The number of atoms in the universe isn't close to infinity.  But infinity is how many games it takes to be CERTAIN the beginner beats Magnus. Otherwise, it's just a likelihood....maybe 10% or maybe 50%, depending on how many millions of games you're talking about. But if it's an infinite number, then the beginner WILL win.