Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

<<<Luck is, according to Merriam-Webster, "a force that brings good fortune or adversity">>>

I normally quite like MW but calling luck a "force" is ....

Luck is not a force because chance is not a force. Chance is how we describe unpredictable events. It's that simple. Luck is how we describe unpredictable events which affect ourselves. There can be good luck and there can be a bad luck. "Luck" is neutral because chance is neutral and just means "randomness".

It is this simple. I doubt there is any better definition of luck available anywhere.

What btickler said about computers I believe is correct even if Im not that I have much info on the topic of (chess) computers.

However, luck and chance w/e you wanna call it applies to engines in a same way as it does to humans, given that the engine can calculate any given position between accuracy of 0 ( random number generator) to 99%. That left over 1-100% of information that the engine lacks ALWAYS may or may not cause the engine to make an inaccurate move. Therefore there is always the chance that the random number generator (applying 0 skill) will make a better move than the strongest engine available (applying 99% of the possible skill available). A weak engine that applies an x amount of skill also has a y amount of chance to make a better move than the strongest engine possible. 

This is because whenever there is missing information and youre forced to make a decision, the missing information creates a random variable. So as long as a human or engine cannot calculate the position to a 100%, random variables and luck exists.

What I think about it is that it's perfectly possible that an rmg (random move generator) will make the strongest move in any position. The chances against a consecutive second strongest move are roughtly the square of the chances against for one such move. If three strongest moves, the cube. If there are 40 possible, legal moves in a position, that's 1 / 64000 against three consecutive strongest moves. Six consecutive is the square of that, which is one in less than one in four billion. If we then jump to 12 consecutive, one in about for 2 x10^19 against. We're still in territory where the number of possible moves isn't much less than 40 and after 12 consecutive best moves we're already in territory where the number of games played, on average, to achieve 12 consecutive best moves, is far more than the number of chess games that well ever be played. So an rmg cannot play a perfect chess game, in the same way that three monkeys with typewriters will not ever produce a work of Shakespeare.

Coolouts lies are stealing attention from this interesting engine discussion.

What do you think about this math based way to determine chance in chess.

This is probably the most compelling argument I’ve seen thus far about luck in chess. I personally don’t believe you should attribute luck to the “unknown” in chess.
For example, if there was an engine powerful enough to completely analyze every outcome of every position then suddenly luck would be “removed” from chess. In reality, it was never there in the first place.

Let's say that, hypothetically, I'm the best debater on Chess.com.

I just came up with the argument that no person has perfect control over their thoughts. Near perfect, maybe ... but not perfect. It would be impossible to prove that a person can have perfect control over their thoughts and rather ridiculous, also. Therefore, some of our thoughts are random and therefore luck exists in chess.

Why didn't I come up with it immediately this thread started or immediately I started to contribute? It just wins, right away, with no possibility of being refuted. The point is that hypothetically, if I'm the best debater on Chess.com and I if didn't mention it immediately (which is the case), then that's equivalent to missing the best move in a game of chess. It reinforces the impression that the argument is correct.

It is correct, unless anyone can prove that they have perfect mental control. It needn't be a chess GM. Just anyone, because the feat of proving you have perfect mental control at all times makes playing a perfect game of chess child's play! Because the latter, with some luck, can be achieved!

QED ... the perfect argument.

In chess there is a finite number of moves that can be played given any position. Out of these finite number of moves, you have full control over which move is chosen. Thus, the outcome of the very next position is fully deterministic. Your opponent is presented with the same situation: they also have full control over their next move which determines the outcome of the position. Following this pattern, the outcome of the game is a result of deterministic moves. There was no random chance involved here. If you start attributing thoughts to random chance, then this entire thread is pointless because luck becomes an inherent part of everything.

You should check my latest reply to you and answer the question, so we can make progress.

Edit. And luck is indeed part of everything, welcome to the world.

Your question was essentially: "If a less skilled entity can have a better outcome than a more skilled entity, what factor would this be considered if not luck?" However, I disagree with your sentiment.

Consider Hikaru's Botez Gambit speedrun: he is intentionally sacrificing his queen and still manages to beat players up to 2000+ rating. This is because a more skilled player doesn't need to get "lucky" to win. There is no way that a beginner player can ever beat a GM because there is no chance element in this game. Unlike poker, for example, where a beginner player can beat a professional player due to luck of the draw.

If your argument is: "There is luck in everything, therefore, in chess." Then this thread is pointless.

Your response was not logically reasoned at all and countered what I said in no way.

I'm talking about one chess move here. If skill was the only factor in chess and no element of randomness, more skill output should result in a better move. A better move in this argument=a better outcome. I've shown that this is not the case, as a stronger engine that calculates the position way more efficiently can produce a worse move than a weaker engine, or even random number generator that displays no skill at all. In this case skill is not the factor, then what is it?

Luck can influence the outcome of a chess game, in countless ways, by influencing the circumstances around the game, and the players themselves.

Engines are vulnerable to malfunctions, to power-outages... Humans are vulnerable to distractions, to sudden emergencies, to environmental disasters, to muscle spasms, to life-ending meteorites falling from the sky ... The list can go on and on.

Imagine if "luck" (or "chance" or even "randomness") were a personified being, and you told her, "You cannot influence a chess game."

She would smirk at you and say, "Wanna bet?"

Lightning = Thor?

Where is the proof that a strong engine can produce a worse move than a weaker engine or RNG? 

There is no proof needed, logic and common sense is enough. Let me help you.

The strongest engines in the world make mistakes for the reasons I named in a previous post; Since the engine is unable to calculate all variations till the end, there is always information missing, based on which the engine has to make a move.

So we know stockfish makes imperfect moves. Take any imperfect stockfish move for an example. Now in the same position we use a random number generator to determine a move. The rng can hit any available move in the position, so we know chances for the rng to hit a better move than stockfish exist and they can be calculated.

Here we have a situation where stockfish obviously applied more skill and calculation power but got a worse outcome than rng applying 0 skill. So skill isnt a factor here, what is? (Hint: its luck)

I see where you are coming from. What if you instead use an engine that CAN calculate all possible variations until the end (assuming one existed)?