Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

CooloutAC wrote:  Chance does not equal luck.  Chance is just the possibility of something happening,  probability.   Random chance is not luck unless it determines success or failure,  good or bad.  Our mind is always part of our human ability,  which is part of our skill set,  and if it can increase our chances and controls every move in chess,  there is no element of luck in chess.

So you admit there is chance and probability in a chess game and state that skill increases the chance of a win? Let's say a low rated player beats the odds and wins against a higher skilled player. You would argue that by your accepted  definition some skill was involved and therefore there was no luck in the game itself! I find your rigid definition does not adequately describe the unpredictability of the players moves, which are part of the game,  and the chance (however low the probability) that a weaker player might stumble onto an excellent move or that a move by a strong player might have unforeseen negative consequences later on! I think most people would indeed call it "luck" if a much weaker player just happens to make that freak play that several moves later pulls off a win!

    Sorry for any confusion. I thought a couple of your comments were directed at me, but it seems you were talking to mikekalish without naming him.

     But consider the case where the mouse slip wasn't of the player's doing, but rather an electronic hiccough, or interruption of the connection leading to loss on time before it can be restored. Then how would either player's action have had any influence? 

watch

This guy is really smart. I've watched a lot of his videos. He explains Einstein's theory of gravity. 

He apparently isn't aware of Optimissed's theory.  

ps. I could only find one comment with negative votes

(I may have missed some, but I only see one)

You've got everybody confused because you say one thing to refute a point and then something contradicting to refute another point. We are at a stalemate.

Well then which is it? First you say luck is a force, like gravity. From what I understand gravity is predictable, there are math equations to describe it and measure it accurately. Now you say you can't predict luck or define it with an equation.

You are saying two opposite things, at the same time. So is luck a force, like gravity, or not?

Your thin veneer of pretending I'm the one obsessed with you and not the other way around is slipping.

Well to be exact you would be in a check mate but you're type of guy who keeps playing and claims there was no mate.

Your aggression and made up claims (don't know this, don't know that) is a sign that youre perfectly aware you have nothing else. 

Anyone who reads your last post that you cited here will come to the same conclusion. You don't say anything specific there that I should respond to, it's just random rambling and going backwards in the argument.

For example I've also used the wind example as an external force but your response to it was that there is still no element of luck in play, even tho it was proven there is.

In chess, yes it is only human moving the pieces and no other force, but this is no proof that there is no luck involved. If you lose your keys and find them after a week because you step on them, theres only human force in play here. Yet you should agree its a lucky incident. Not even an analogy to chess necessarily, but just against this specific argument that there needs to be another force to allow the element of luck.

I'm not pretending to not know what you mean. I still don't know what you mean. You say two opposing things, at nearly the same time. I know what you say, of course, but I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Probably only you know what you mean. 

So back to the question. You said luck is a force, like gravity. Which can be expressed using math to make predictions and measurements. But then you said  you can't give an equation for it, because that's what makes it luck. All within the last few days, you have said both. So which one is it?

Today you are saying any force similar to gravity or randomizing device is not a factor. So yeah, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that, or most things you say for that matter.

It is impossible to tell whether anything that happens is good “luck” or bad “luck” because you never know what the consequence of “luck” will be.
In my short time playing this game, there is just hoping and wishing.  

Luck is outside our control. If you use skill to fool an opponent, there is no luck. If you are losing a game and your opponent's internet disconnects, then is that luck or a win from consequences beyond your control...  you are correct that the words are used to distinguish. 
Good or bad luck can only be noticed in hindsight...

 Or, my dog got out and bit the neighbour and had to be put down, or maybe he got out and went to the woods and brought a rabbit home for tea

     Absurd. All the golfers in a tournament do NOT play in the same wind conditions. Wind conditions change over time. Those in an early foursome may have totally different winds than exist in late afternoon. And there are tournaments that utilize more than one golf course. Player A may be on a more sheltered course than player B, getting an advantage. Who gets the more favorable conditions is a matter of chance--"the luck of the draw".

    I would also be interested in knowing what skill it is that lets the golfer know in advance when a sudden gust of wind, strong enough to alter the flight of the ball, is about to occur so that they can alter their shot to account for it. Or is this another example where time travel is necessary to overcome bad luck?

     Again with "yes that's luck but it isn't chess." Winning and losing is the very "sporting" element you always talk about. Or is this another case of something rarely happening so we can just ignore it when it does?

     The original question makes no mention of other games.

Again, it doesn't matter if you can affect the outcome in the wind. This only proves theres is skill involved. Just like wind can affect the outcome out of your control, this proves there is luck also. Neither force can prove the other element doesn't exist. There is no definition in the world you can cite in your reply and prove otherwise.

I never said you agreed, I said you should agree. Another ridiculous answer, you think stepping on keys to find them is not lucky.

"It's not a multiplayer competition"

So what? Examples out of context of games can still prove your argument does not work. Luck applies to life and gaming the same, as opposed to what you claim without any reasonable argument.

Also I never said losing keys was unlucky, I said finding them was lucky. You threw in a strawman argument once again to deflect the real stuff.

There absolutely is luck in chess. We can see it in matches between chess engines. They may play a 100 game match against each other using the same opening and have ten decisive games between them. There’s no way to predict in advance which ten games they will be.

I think it was Peter Svidler who said, it takes skill to win a game, but luck to win a tournament. Some players push the odds in their favor (“good players are always lucky” as Capa said), but there’s still uncertainty and randomness in chess.

The objective of every great player is to minimize the role of luck. But until the game is solved, there will be luck in chess.