Also the topic of this thread is luck IN the game, any forces of luck that can affect the game that are unintended and incidental are irrelevant and not part of the discussion on the important distinction between chess or sports compared to other games. Luck is a force that increases ones chances of success or failure, without ones OWN actions, ability or efforts. PERIOD.
Here you outright admit that there ARE "forces of luck that can affect the game". Your preposterous quibbling that somehow these aren't really part of the game is just your desperate attempt to disprove what you freely admit is reality.
Your assertion that ONLY your opinion of what the OP meant by "in chess" can be considered here is hokum. You are not the ultimate authority. Constantly repeating that others using parameters other than yours are ipso facto always incorrect is meaningless.
I'm also amused that you regularly claim you always know that GMs or professional athletes really mean something different when they say they got lucky, or that luck plays a part in their sport. It's really ironic when you also lambaste others for trying to explain what someone else may have meant in a quote.
This forum is about the existence of any element of luck in chess, not a comparison with other games.
To be fair, he could talk about game design of chess. As such, the element of randomness in the game is only choice of color. Since every game of skill without randomness, where at least one human player is participating, will gave luck or chance from the “outside”.
That just means that even the most skillbased game will have element of chance if human players are involved. So differnce between poker, chess and flipping a coin is degree of chance instead of mix, pure skill and pure chance as some would claim.
When I was in school, I learned what a definition is. Back then, to define something was clear.... you assign it to a class, and then you differentiate it from all other members of that class. For example,
Convertible: A vehicle which has an easily removable roof and can be driven with or without the roof.
By this standard, some dictionary meanings probably do fall into the category of "definitions" and some may not.
That seems true but there's a "but". Obviously, "convertible" has different meanings, It's an adjective which has come to be used as a noun in some circumstances. For instance, btickles may be convertible from a card-carrying idjit to an intelligent person, by means of an application of loving care and attention. Doubtful, though.
Words can have multiple definitions, but each one should place the subject in a classs and differentiate it from all others in the class. For example....table. It can be a piece of furniture or a group of numbers, but either definition should do those two things. Your "but" is really more of an "and".