Believe me, when you blunder and your opponent misses it, that’s luck.
So then it's unlucky when you blunder and your opponent sees it?
And if you answer "no" then it's a matter of (subjective) reference.
Either way what you said is silly.
Then why are criminals punished? If they were destined from the start to rob and murder, then it isn't their fault, is it?
Then why are criminals punished? If they were destined from the start to rob and murder, then it isn't their fault, is it?
That's only a problem for those who confuse some kind of idealized justice or supernaturally based morality with practical and mundane modern justice systems.
You simply remove dangerous elements from society. That's all.
Of course there is luck in chess.
Yeah "good luck" is just something someone was once taught in some scholastic program and as memetic proliferation goes, everyone says it, as if its the thing to say.
It's just a meaningless pleasantry like "have a nice day" or "how are you". Perhaps you should just regard it as a wish that bad luck doesn't spoil you game.
If someone says "good luck" to me before a chess game, I think I interpret that as a weakness on their part.
"When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."
- Winston Churchill
If someone says "good luck" to me before a chess game, I think I interpret that as a weakness on their part. If someone were to say "show me your best game" then that would double my resolve to win. Hardly a clever thing to say to your opponent!
Something like "enjoy your game" is usually an innocent platitude that I would react positively to, out of friendship. Enjoying it doesn't mean I'm going to make more errors.
"Enjoy your game" is so weird if someone tell you that.
It's like an order.
Also i don't understand, why "good luck" and the luck in actual chess are involved since it's an idiom in beginning and doesn't correlate with the word luck itself.
You cannot know the issue of the game until it's end by a way so he doesn't make sense you take it literally.
Predestination approaches "determinism" in meaning. Stripped of all religious connotations, predestination means strong determinism.
Since there's no luck in chess, when I shake my opponent's hand before the game and say "Good luck", I'm not really saying meaning anything or wishing him anything. 
To put it briefly, determinism, or the idea that everything is predestined as part of an incorrigible universal mechanism, is a form of idealism. All idealisms are attempts to model the universe or perhaps throught or logic on overly simplified "rules". So a person who has heard of cause and effect may believe in it to the extent that he thinks there is nothing else. Worse still, such a person notionally reverses it and imagines that just because a cause has led inexorably to an effect, then that effect proves that a particular cause occured. And that's illogical, because someone can turn blue because they're asphyxiated or because they're covered in blue ink. And just as an effect may be the result of different causes, so can a cause give rise to more than one possible effect. To make matters worse, quantum effects don't seem to have causes.
In other words you mean to ask "Just how do we know a cause is a cause?" It didn't take long for radical empiricism to wake up with this problem quite early in the philosophical morning with David Hume who realized in his foggy rationalist hangover that causality is a mere word we use to attribute demonstrative knowledge that doesn't really exist. We're still puking and spewing philosophical nonsense to this very day, and we simply can't rid ourselves of this headache regarding certainty. On top of that we swallowed the elicit pill of quantum mechanics, which Einstein warned us not to take, and now we got vertigo due to all kinds of quantum weirdness. What's worse is on top of all that we have the audacity to use all kinds of big words like we're really smart and know something. The phantasmagoria just never ends. But dream on, noble philosophers, until you wake up, for "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
In time we might not claim to know much of anything, for first we spoke with the authority of ironclad scientific logic; then we declared truth by fiat of the quantum mysteries. . .knowing full well that all scientific truth must ever remain refutable, held in eternal abeyance by the possibilities of truer statements. In this regard, Chess is superior to science, for here determinism reigns at least when I see mate in two or three, or when I know that a passed pawn can never be stopped. Here we can often depend on simple probabilistic judgments based on features of the position and "quality of pieces", "number of attackers vs. defenders" etc., and we never worry about the quantum superposition of states, unless you're like Kasparov and you can be simultaneously touching and not touching a piece. But I'm no grandmaster.
All this strange writing is not helping my hangover. I drop it here.
Agree snoozyman ... it's all predetermined