There is luck in chess?

 I agree, there is not such thing as "luck" in a chess game. If your opponent missed a good move, or make a blunder or run out of time. Is simply because is not good enough to spot the move or analyze faster... But there is nor "random thing" in a chess game. It's brain vs. brain.

So, if you are lucky enough to have a good trained brain, then good for you!.

ah, the wonders of the philosophy of language.

I bet there are some "random events" that can impact an online chess game...

- Server going down.

- Heart attack.

- Boungcloud opening accepted.

- Power failure.

None of that is luck. 

it depends on your definition of luck. pure luck, like randomly finding a $20 bill on the ground, is not present in chess. you can get lucky though if say your opponent makes a mistake. i won a game because i moved and got a checkmate that i had no idea it was checkmate when i moved there. i had moved there to get a pawn, but it happened to be checkmate. is that lucky? somewhat. i guess there is no "pure luck" in chess. you luck is what you/your opponent makes it.

So luck is: seemingly random events that benefit someone?

Here's what google, the authority on everything, says...

Definitions of luck on the Web:

Of course it's luck in chess. You can make a random move you don't understand the sense with, only to find out it's winning. Or you can make a mistake, but your opponent is extracted by his cell phone ringing and then he misses it.

 We all know chess is a skill-based game, and it would be almost impossible to get lucky with all the moves in a game, or over a long run. But on the short run, yes, luck exists. Just like in poker (although poker has a lot more long time luck and variance, the principle stays the same: Over a large sample size, good players will win and bad players will loose)

Be careful, you are close to contradicting yourself. Unless of course I am misreading your posts (happens from time to time).

One can argue that common usage is what dictates the defination of a word. Which is why I brought up the philosophy of language.  This is also why there is no right or wrong answer to this question.

So you claim that on the chess board there is no luck. I disagree. If I play against Garry Kasparov, I would lose. But I would not loose 100% of the time. I would loose 99.99999% of the time. Why? Because I could get lucky with a series of moves, thus playing perfect moves. Yes, it's possible. Close your eyes and move something. If all those moves happens to be the best moves, you could beat a GM. But it's not skill. You took a big change and got lucky. (I know this is a very unrealistic example, but just so you get my point - there IS some luck in chess. Very, very rarely, but there is.)

Let's get real here...  What is the first thing most of us want to know when facing a new opponent?  Usually it's, "What is his or her rating?"  And what we're really asking is, "What are the *odds* of me beating him or her?"  In fact, that's what the entire rating system is:  attempting to answer the question, "What is the statistically expected outcome of a chess game?"

So...  if it makes sense to talk about odds and statistics and such with respect to chess, how can there not be some random factors involved during a chess game that would reasonably fall under the general catgory of "luck?"  Obviously there have to be.

I understand where the "there's no luck in chess" advocates are coming from:  that all information about the game is available to both players, that players are solely responsible for their moves, that it's just brain vs. brain (unless a player is a computer...), etc.  And all of that is completely true.  However, in any activity involving humans (and maybe even the silicon beasts as well...) there is a certain random factor that overlays and perturbs the skill factor, the latter clearly being the dominant factor in chess. 

No one (other than perhaps the folks running FIDE) would recommend basing the world championship on a blitz (let alone a bullet) game.  Why?  Because we all (including the "no luck in chess" crowd) instinctively know those human factors are present and we want such an important contest to be long enough, in both time controls and number of games, so that the random human elements have a reasonable chance to cancel out and produce a satisfying result.  And even if most of us wouldn't put it this way, "long enough" is just another way of saying "statistically significant."

Maybe the lexicographers missed a definition!

In the sense many of us seem to be using it, I think luck is an opportunity, the arrival of which is beyond our control, which we recognize as an opportunity and take advantage of (for good luck anyway).

For a chess definition of random, how about:  A choice or move from a number of different lines, the consequences of which are indistinguishable to the player making the move.

Anyone else have definitions? 

As an aside, didn't Julius Caesar worship Fortuna (i.e. "luck"), but also drilled his troops extra hard so that he would be lucky.  Get back to doing problems!

RetGuvvie98> Reb, some could argue that is his stupidity and failure to follow the tournament rules that cost him the game.

He lost because of two factors: (1) he forgot to turn off his cell phone and (2) someone called him. The first factor was under his control, but the second factor  was not. We can call that second factor luck, chance, fate, Murphy's Law, or divine intervention but all of those conclusions have something in common--something outside the direct control of either player had a hand in determining the outcome of the game.

I think that's just someone who forgot to turn off their mobile phone. It happened to ring during the game. The only reason we think it's "luck" is that someone's mistake benefits us - in my opinion. Hey, Reb, have you ever met anybody that we would all know like Kasparov or Kramnik or Anand? PLEASE tell us about them if you have.

Yes there is luck in chess. I have won games I should have lost, and I have blundered so that my oponent had an easy game.  Chess probably has the least amount of luck of any game.  Luck is not intrisic to chess as it is in cards or dice, and you do not have to rely on the skills, ambition, and drive of teammates.  It is only you and your opponent.  But as soon as you add the human element a degree of luck is inevitable. 

If your opponent falls into a double attack you may feel that a certain amount of skill helped you, and you would be right.  If you conciously lead your opponent into that double attack, then so much moreso.  But if your opponent hangs a piece, what is that if not luck?  I agree with cianlloyd that the higher ranked the player, the less luck is a factor, but it can never be completely eliminated as long as humans play the game.

Makes sense. When you "get lucky" does it mean your opponent undergoes the opposite of getting lucky? It's best to look at both point of views. It gets confusing from there...

I think there is luck in chess.  I wrote a blog entry about it:

"Luck is not chance; it’s toil. Fortune’s expensive smile is earned."
– Emily Dickinson

One of the great differences between chess and other wargames is the element of chance. It has been observed - sometimes with respect, other times with derision - that there are no dice in chess; no randomly dealt cards; no element of pure happenstance whatsoever. However, that is not to say that there is no element of luck in chess. Indeed, chess, perhaps more so than any other wargame, properly mimics the alternating moods of the goddess Tyche. For in real war, as in chess, our successes and failures are not determined by pure random chance; no one rolls a die to see if an assault will succeed. Rather, victory or defeat is often due to hard work that capitalizes upon moments of good fortune.

The following game is an excellent example of luck at work on the chess board. Due to an oversight on my part, my opponent had an excellent opportunity for victory. Then Tyche smiled and my luck improved significantly….