Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Can we talk later, another time? It's late here and I have some things to do before I can go to bed.

bruh 4000 posts XD

btw yes, you can risk things and just hope ur opponent doesn't see it 😋

No, you misunderstand the nature of what's being discussed. You imagine that luck is some kind of power (like Thor). Luck is nothing different from random chance.

Anyway,  a few posts ago I posted an argument that cannot be refuted, that luck plays a part in chess. That was the argument from mental control. I note that you dodged that one fairly adeptly and prefer to concentrate on the arguments you believe you can cope with.

I called out a personification of luck.  That being quite literally analogous, it seems I understood it better than you have.

Your argument is irrelevant.  It's based on the same stuff you have always posted.  I was talking to a new poster, who seems less upset than you about my reply to his post .

Lastly, you're not the "leader" of one side of this debate, in spite of your belief.

am i new?

"Called out" indicates that you think such a personification was immoral or maybe irrational. It was, in fact, a rather fun and rhetorical way of making a point. It isn't for us to disagree with someone's preferred method of making an argument. It's up to us to understand it.

You don't cause upset when you write something stupid. Take note: that is not you being called "stupid". By this time, you usually cause resigned acceptance of the inevitable. Logically, you're incorrect, as well as understanding very little.

Despite your apparent belief, I am not the leader of this side of the debate. A good debate doesn't have leaders or people who do what they are told and think as they are told.

Anyway, the personification of luck was metaphorical and it was a reasonable way of making a point. Grammatically, it may have been a simile, rather than a metaphor: I'll have to read it again, to see what I think. You made a logical error in assuming that you were addressing the origination of luck. Luck is chance, from a human or subjective perspective. It cannot be wholly eliminated from human endeavour, despite the protestations of a strangely absent Coolout.

Are you clearer?

Exactly.  I changed nothing you quoted from google, and simply added the definition of skill as an antithesis.  All you keep doing is showing you never understood the definition of skill anymore then you did luck,  except to rightly conclude they are opposites of each other,   or you would of already known this fact.

You should stop calling people "my friend" and then calling them dishonest. That in itself is dishonest.

1) Skill is not the antithesis of luck. See my post #3417: "As is always the case with Coolout, unless he is quoting someone verbatim, you can assume he is just making things up to argue against. In this case, you can see my post #709 where I explicitly said the exact opposite of what Coolout claims. I wrote: '...luck and skill are not "opposite words with opposite definitions."'" 

2) Skill and luck might be crudely thought of as existing at opposite ends of a spectrum, but that doesn't make them opposites. Usain Bolt and an SR71 are on opposite ends of a speed spectrum, but "Usain Bolt" is not the opposite of "plane", for example.  

3) You tack on your or-statement (which I have seen nobody else use), since that is your real definition of luck. See my post #3436 where I say your definition of luck is necessarily "not being able to increase one[']s chances of success from practice or knowledge". If I say the definition of a chair is "a four legged place where people sit" and you say a chair is "a four legged place where people sit or any living creature", obviously you did change the definition to add a pretty big hammer of which you can hit many nails. 

Talk about "random word-salad". You're incapable of arguing or discussing coherently.

For the record, a dictionary that defines luck as "fortune" isn't a dictionary, it's a thesaurus. 

     Which just illustrates the point that picking out one dictionary definition from the many that exist and proclaiming that that is the one "true" meaning that everyone in this forum must acknowledge is asinine.

First of all,  that is the topic of this thread,  to distinguish chess between other games.  many games do indeed have luck written into the rules.   

I figure it's always best to consider all of them. Sort of like taking an average. Combine all of them and take the average. What do they usually say the most? There is always going to be some offbeat random definition that is hardly ever used, but for most words (like luck) there seems to be a very small number of definitions that are commonly used by most dictionaries. 

All the definitions I've seen, and the ones posted here all seem pretty acceptable.

     Wrong. It doesn't matter how many differences we can discover between chess and hopscotch, blackjack, go, or any other games. That has no bearing on the actual topic here--whether or not there is any bit of luck in chess.

None of the definitions conflict my friend.  And words exist for a reason.  Its extremely dishonest to debate a topic of luck,  if you can't even define the word and how it applies to gaming and why that is important.