lucky players that win and run

When you get low on time in a daily game, you automatically get put on vacation for that game. It takes one day of vacation. Basic members get 30 days of vacation to use; platinum get 60 and diamond get 90.

I've never been a premium member but I believe it automatically puts you on vacation for a day if you're about to lose a daily game on time.

Evidently while I was typing my answer, wanmokewan beat me to it.

:P. Sorry.

I still want whatever drugs you're on.

This is OP when his rematch request is declined, from 0:18 on:

All of you who believe luck plays a role in chess need to relearn the rules of chess.

Chess is 100% calculation, you don’t roll the dice between moves..

Damn, that explains a lot. I've been letting the dice decide my moves and now you tell me I can decide for myself...... I got the feeling I had something mixed up with that backgammon/chess combined board/set.

I've already explained how luck can and does factor into the results of a game of chess. Given that you haven't refuted what I said (mere gainsaying is not an argument), your tacit concession on the matter is acknowledged.

The only time luck doesn't factor into the results of a game of chess is if both players play to the best of their ability on every move. This often doesn't happen, which is why the term "blunder" exists. When Ivanchuk missed a mate-in-one against Anand - https://youtu.be/RtSPhginkNQ?t=7m35s - Anand was lucky, winning a game that would have been a loss on any other day, and that's just one of countless examples. Or do you think Anand's calculating ability had something to do with Ivanchuk not seeing a mate-in-one?

Yes, it does in cases like this, and consider your tacit request to redefine the word "luck" denied.

"success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions."

It wasn't Anand's actions which prevented his loss (it was out of his hands once he was in a position to be checkmated in one); it was Ivanchuk's oversight (a type of oversight which is incredibly rare for a grandmaster) which prevented his loss. And it was an oversight, not a "poor calculation". Do you think Ivanchuk magically lost the ability at that moment to correctly calculate an obvious mate-in-one, something which even a beginner can do? He didn't calculate that move at all, because for whatever reason, he didn't see it. The same goes for any other blatant blunder.

>it merely illustrates miscalculation.

No, it wasn't a miscalculation (see above), and even if it was, it would still be luck if the person making the miscalculation would only do so e.g., one out of a million times. That's where chance comes in, i.e., when a player does something blatantly beneath their ability, i.e., a mistake they wouldn't normally make. 

Hence, you play with friends or computer. They will agree to a rematch. People can just not to fight you again. I personally think it's their loss because they didn't bother to confirm if the opponent they beat is top-notch. 
I rather lose to a talented player than winning a weaker player.  Winning weaker players will not get you anywhere.

I don't like re-matching people because in the second game I end up playing against stockfish

I think the word ‘luck’ in this thread is being misused instead of ‘fortunate’.

Luck within the context of games has very precise usage, and refers specifically to chance based events that result from a random process, such as the throwing of dice, or the flipping of a coin.

Even outside of this specific usage it feels odd to me to call miscalculations/blunders good luck/bad luck, as by extension you would have to call Magnus Carlsen very ‘lucky’ to always win his games, when in fact he wins more often than most due to his superior ability and skills of calculation.

You can try to redefine it as luck, but as you touched on, mistakes and their kin, blunders (stupid mistakes) are part of the game.  Blunders and mistakes are expressions of skill; skill is not a constant but fluctuates with time, even on a moment to moment basis.  For the player who is able to capitalize on their opponent's mistakes and blunders, it is not luck but the flexing of their skill.  For the player unable to capitalize on them, it is also an expression of their skill. 

The bit about any play below the best of one's ability amounting to luck is nonsensical.  You might as well make the claim that *all* play is luck at that point.  While it is true that a variety of circumstances dictate how we play at any given moment, including distractions, mental laziness, poor training, diet, etc., each of these things are able to be controlled.  The highly skilled player is able to control more of these factors, and more often.   This extends to any activity which takes skill to perform.

SMART players are those who win and run.

Motivation to win is a key element to the game.  Those that lost are more motivated to prove themselves. Those that win have already done so and have less incentive to prove themselves again.

Stepping away from a rematch helps restore the emotional balance and levels the playing field.

If you want to prove yourself, make your first game count.  Not your next.

As to the argument of Luck vs. Skill a chess master I once knew said that... "Even good players are entitled to a little luck!"

If luck is part of the game, it makes little difference, as everyone is equally entitled.  It's the more skillful player that knows how to exploit a position to improve his odds of winning.

Backgammon is a perfect example of the dynamics between luck and skill. Any individual die roll could prove to be good or bad. But the better players know how to play the pips to reduce the damage of a bad roll while maximizing the impact of a good one. That's skill, and over time, and multiple games, the better player comes out ahead.

There are quite many people who do not give rematch when they win, but ask for rematch when they lose. What do you think?

A good general recognizes when his enemy is goading him into a fight, and is willing to refuse to give battle until he knows he is ready.