Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

     Misquoting me again. I have said that, as you agree, skill cannot be honed to 100% accuracy meaning that not every action is decided by skill, luck MAY sometimes play a part. The basketball player used just the same skills on the missed shot as he did on the many successful attempts, but on that attempt some factor--a wet or smooth spot on the ball's surface, fatigue at the end of a hard game, over or under inflation of the ball making it a whisker lighter/heavier, even the wind when playing on an outdoor court--caused the player's shot to go awry. I'm not saying that the player was unlucky, I maintain that the other team was lucky that this rare miss happened at such an opportune time. You say you are a betting man; would you have taken an even-money wager that the player would miss? 

     Still repeating the same lie. My contention is that no golfer (soccer player, placekicker, whatever) can practice the EXACT shot that might be affected by a freak gust of wind. Your contention that "there are always gusts of wind that come up after a golfer makes his shot" is idiotic past all comprehension. Sometimes the wind holds steady while the ball is in the air, sometimes there is no wind, sometimes the variance is so slight to have no affect on the ball's flight. It is only when the wind suddenly changes enough to materially affect the flight of the ball, changing a good shot into a poor shot, that we would say the golfer was unlucky on that shot.

     I contend that practicing field goals (or whatever) in the wind all day every day will NOT help a person calculate how to make a kick when the wind changes drastically while the ball is in the air. Once the kicker makes his calculations and strikes the ball perfectly, a freak gust of wind strong enough to blow the perfectly-struck ball off target can, and sometimes does occur. That's not poor skill on the kicker's part, it's just bad luck.

     A freak caprice of the weather on one play can't be accounted for or predicted. And the very football field-goal video you posted shows that  when weather conditions become ridiculously chaotic, not all sports call off games--particularly if the game started well before the weather turned bad.

You are the only person that I've ever encountered who has said there is no luck in sports. That is why the part of the definition that you added ("increase ones chances of a successful result")-- the addition which you need to make your worldview work, and the addition which I have only ever seen from you-- has been rejected by myself and the others you are arguing with. Since it is not what the rest of the world means when they use the word "luck". 

See my post #908: "...it is not reasonable to create an or-statement, pull a second criteria out of thin air that comes from nobody but yourself, and stick that on to the definition. It is like me  saying the definition of luck is 'success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions or the inherent part of each game of chess.'"

     I don't dispute that taking precautions can help. I do maintain that there are weather conditions freakish enough that such precautions become useless. Look at the video and notice that the flags atop the goal posts indicate that the wind is changing in intensity and even direction a few times in that short clip. As ball is snapped and the kicker starts to move the steel goalposts begin to sway in the suddenly increased wind. Perhaps you read what I wrote about the hawk winds along the lakefront in Chicago blowing in sudden gusts strong enough to blow pedestrians into the street. This is not hyperbole. The city stretches strong ropes along the sidewalks for handholds as a safety measure. Do you seriously believe that you can make allowances for a wind that strong if you don't know it is coming, or from which direction?

     Again, blatantly misrepresenting my statements to prove something I didn't say is wrong, therefore you must be right. Never, anywhere have I said "every play and action is based on luck". That's a load of bull droppings you made up yourself to use to "refute" what others say. No one in all the posts in this extensive forum has ever said such a thing--except you. Shameful, dishonest, cowardly, disgraceful.

No it isn't. I've given you example after example of people in other sports who recognize and even celebrate the existence of luck in their disciplines. Basketball, football, and soccer to name a few. I recall a certain WR for the Pats attributing his magical catch to "30% luck" (see here). The list goes on and on, but more examples are in my post #1958 below:

1) For luck in general, see Fooled By Randomness or The Success Equation

2) For luck in markets, see A Random Walk Down Wall Street

3) For luck in sports, see Fangraphs or any other sabermetric inclined site. 

4) For luck in board games, see the Ludometrics Paper

5) For luck in tests, see what we mean by measurement error

6) For luck in gambling, see this paper on poker

etc. etc. Insurance companies, medicine, finance, entertainment, all these types of businesses think of luck as ubiquitous.

So since we're talking about consensus and I've shown all these examples of people in a multitude of different industries and sports who seem to agree with how I and the people you're arguing against think of luck, can you link us athletes that think otherwise? That is athletes on the record that think that every event which has taken place in their sport is down to skill and ability?

     For the benefit of those who seem to have a severe reading impediment, I have said NO SUCH THING. I have maintained that as skill can never be improved to 100% efficacy, there A CHANCE that sometimes luck MAY enter into the equation. 

I keep seeing you repeat this (the child who said "if you can't explain it in your own words...") but the person who brought that up was addressing you and agreeing with me lol (see his message #1884 for the original note, his post #1894 saying that "we are in agreement there is luck in chess", and my post #1902 that s/he thumbed up).

I can easily explain what is written in each article, but the topic is consensus. I showed you many examples of people who think similarly to me, and I have yet to see anything from "anybody who is competitive and sporting" supplied by you that thinks the opposite. So it is a mystery where you are getting your consensus when all evidence so far points to exactly the opposite.

I don't think the definition is wrong, I think you either completely misunderstand the "one's own actions part", or acknowledge that the definition you're using is insufficient, so resort to having to add on your own second half of the definition as I outlined in my post #3261

It's common for chess players to make a move with a specific intention in mind (threatening a pawn, or defending a square), only to discover, later on, that the move actually accomplished much more than they realized (the beginning of a material winning sequence, or the start of a forced mate).

Leading to a generous outcome that was not even remotely on their radar.

I'd call that a luck.

You have yet to explain a dice roll as not being of ones own actions without adding your changed definition (which nobody here, or anywhere else I've looked for that matter, has agreed with). So it is you who is not able to explain things in your own words. 

On the subject of consensus, I have provided link after link showing others agree with me in how they think about luck in sports. Your understanding of what they are saying is irrelevant; consensus is about quantity. So since you have shown us no athlete who disagrees, it is again you who are not able to explain your position (the imaginary consensus among "anybody who is competitive and sporting" that anything that takes place in their sport is exclusively due to their skill).

Produce the quote.  Not sure why there are so many posters who want want to attach themselves to me like a remora to a shark...

There was no Einstein quote.  Your memory is faulty.  There was a fake quote, attributed to Einstein, posted by some kid who doesn't know the difference...and apparently you don't know the difference, either.

I would say this is the main role of luck in chess.

This is just a concrete example of it but it goes much deeper. Every chess move made does things to the position that humans cannot consider, and this creates a snow ball effect through out the game that creates situations on the board out of players control as the game progresses. The more skillful the players are, the more intentional the position they reach become, therefore less role for luck.

The old Coolout argument "but even if you didn't intend to do this, it was caused by human action" can be refuted by many applications to real life. A person does something for a certain purpose and it has an unintended beneficial effect.

I do see this point of view as well and many times it is the case, that you make a move without a specific purpose because you know its good. This is absolutely mostly skill related, positional play.

But it does not take away from the argument.  There are moves you make with a very specific purpose, and there are also threats that need a very specific response. These things have to be seen and intentionally reacted to. Also moves can in a subtle way bring the position into a direction you dont intend to.

There are very concrete examples to demonstrate this. A beginner can play a move of his choice for a very superficial reason, that can be based on wrong calculation. Yet stockfish can rank this move as the best in the position for reasons the beginner couldnt begin to understand. This incident is based on chance, not skill, and its possible to even calculate probability for this kind of incident.

To take this even deeper, the fact that this kind of "unintentional best move" scenario can happen once, proves that there is a certain probability for this to continue for 20+ moves in a row. It's a possible scenario that a beginner can play a full game of stockfish moves without knowing the actual functions these moves have in the game.

This scenario is compareable to a random number generator determining the moves, with the difference that a human (ie. beginner in the example) would have a purpose for these moves, alltho a faulty purpose.

While I'm using an extremely unlikely example to demonstrate my point, elements of this randomness happen in every game, the worse the players the more it happens.

The topic is complex and as chess does involve many types of ability related stuff from intuition to calculation, the role of randomness can be best demontrated with very concrete examples to differentiate it from skill.

Agreed. But even one or two stockfish moves instead of the 20+ I gave in the example, will make a difference and introduce the element of randomness = luck in the game.

The 20 move example was to demonstrate that it's a possible scenario that a whole game would be decided by luck without skill being involved. The probability is almost nonexistent, but again this is just to demonstrate how this element exists and can affect a game to maximum extent. In a real game as I said, the elements always exist but they are usually more subtle. Chess is mostly based on skill after all.

At my old chess club, the local master had his hanging board up (made of felt, with pockets for each square) and was showing a position.

He asked for move ideas, and a few of the kids in front suggested moving the king knight, or improving the rook. Then a teenage boy called out "pawn a4!"

"Yes!" the master said. "That's actually the best move here. Can you tell us why you chose it?"

The boy looked a bit embarrassed, and admitted that he was joking. "I was just yelling out a random move. To be funny."

The master nodded, then said, "Well, you found the right idea! Let's talk about it."

So then we talked about the queenside and minority attacks. But the boy found the right move by chance only - an intended joke.

This can happen in a game, for similar reasons. A player might feel despondent over their position, and choose to play an intentionally random move, as a result. Because "why not?"

The move turns out to be, accidentally, the best move in the position, and the game takes a lucky turn for the better.

"It's surely best to concentrate on the cases of obvious luck than to give the opposition any chance of making a good argument. A lot of people around here don't know how to make a cast iron argument and consequently"

There is no logical way to refute my argument from the couple previous posts if the concept is understood

I would also call that at least partial luck. Most people would call that luck. They intentionally moved there, of course. The wind didn't do it. But like you said, they had no intention of accomplishing what it actually accomplished. 

I've given the example, even if it's more rare, of having no intentions at all. No plan, no motive, no strategy. Just a random move because it happens to be a legal move. 

...says the guy who wrote 5 times as much as I did.

P.S. Does adding 3 reactions to posts make you feel like the leader of your own posse?