Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

I agree with you on the latter point. I've found that those who control vote chess games play what THEY want to play much of the time. It's useless.

Regarding the former point, when I beat people in blitz or when I used to beat them in Daily, virtually no-one ever accused me of cheating. I've always blocked those who trash talked, in any case and maybe that's a tiny minority and I blocked them all, more or less. I don't think it's a problem except for someone to whom it may happen for some secondary reason?

Elroch is correct as usual.
But controversy about determinism versus fatalism continues on through the centuries anyway.
There's even a kind of controversy about fatalism 'determining'.
Its called Fate.
'As Fate has it'.
Isaac Asimov discussed the idea of 'future history' in some of his books.
Theories about determining the future.
With an idea that it would be impossible to determine the changing mosaic of small details.
But that it is possible to 'steer' events. Even in a large-scale way.
Realism: Nobody can know the future to an exact degree. Regardless of how much it might appear to be the case. Nor steer the future in a way that is both exact and all-encompassing.
And the present cannot be known thoroughly.
The past? Not all the details.

Yes, I purposefully chose to take the meaning that does not continue the discussion, because I've already ended it twice ,

Blitz is to chess as ping pong is to tennis. Fast and exciting, but ultimately lacking.

Yes...an observant person would have seen that I already implied the secondary reason...the people that challenged me were usually trolls I had taken to task in the forums. You have a 2 on the front of your rating, so you naturally get a lot more blind challenges by people headhunting. It's not difficult to figure out.

That's a silly position, and based on your equally silly position on solving chess. Of course it does not require the same moves to win when the opposition is not playing perfect moves. Any schoolkid could tell you that.

If chess is a forced draw then there's a very high probably there's a margin for it and not a single series of perfect moves, but that margin is certainly not anywhere close to being discernable by you. Engines routinely massacre what passes for "perfect play" in humans, and they are still learning to trounce each other, ergo, there's no basis for you to set any thresholds whatsoever. You and I are light years away from being able to comment on what constitutes perfect play in any position more complicated than a basic endgame from Reuben Fine.

I'm far more intelligent than you are, Dio. I thought you might have learned that by now. You are certainly not able to explain WHY you think my position is silly with a properly reasoned argument, are you. 
I'm pretty sure you haven't understood any of what I explained to you. When will you grow up?

You have failed to show me up even once in a decade other than some nitpick about a word, so logically, that seems like a very dubious claim. When will you stop thinking you are smarter than everyone on the planet? Don't make me break out the links of you acting like you're God's gift to creation...your unilateral claims never do get you anywhere.

It seems you're good to go, since the biggest disparity I ran into was a GM losing to a 1700. It was GM Emre Can in the 2010 Olympiad. He blundered mate actually. These things happen, but the bigger the disparity, also the rarer the match up.

Oh come on. You have some positive qualities .... decent rhetorical ability and self-confidence are two of them. You can be pleasant to people you happen to like and who don't challenge you. You are not a great intellect. That's just a fact and I'm sure you actually know it. You're not stupid so don't act like you are because a lot of people here think you are.

I wasn't making a claim. I was explaining my view about something. You couldn't understand what I was talking about even though I was being clear and keeping it simple. End of.

You and a handful of crackpots are not "a lot of people". I don't claim to be a great intellect. That's your (unilateral) claim.

Given that you falter on a regular basis in your arguments with myself and many other posters here, and chose to ally yourself with some of the most willfully ignorant posters on the forums, I'm not inclined to pay much attention to your observations about me. But rest assured, I will still pay attention to your observations on scientific topics, etc. and keep calling you out every time your "great intellect" gets something wrong. You'll notice that it happens frequently.

I'll recap for you, so try to actually understand what I'm talking about.

The question as to whether "chess is or is not drawn with best play" is nonsensical, when we don't know what "best play is". It's merely hypothetical. The question changes when we posit a similar question regarding "good play", which we can define as consisting only of "good moves" which themselves are defined as "moves which do not change a game state asssesment" (or other words to that effect).

Current positional assessment cannot be altered in a positive way by any possible move. We can only make good moves which maintain the assessment, or those that reduce the game state assessment on the scale "win -draw - loss". Note that this applies also in the hypothetiocal situation where the initial position is a win for either black or for white. Therefore it isn't at all contentious.

Unfortunately, the theory, such as it is, has been addressed in an unhelpful way by so-called experts, which is why the nonsensical obsession with "is chess a draw with best play" has come about. In exactly the same manner, many people here refer to their rating as "ELO" even though C.c uses Glicko, which is an inferior (less accurate) rating system to ELO but which approximates to a potential rating more quickly. Nothing is going to get people to stop talking about their "ELO" and it's the same with "is chess a draw with best play?"

You have to learn to think hypothetically, which means considering all the implications of an hypothetical premise such as "chess is a draw given good moves on both sides" or "chess is a win for (either side) given good moves etc". Then it's necessary to determine what the evidence is. Evidence does not consist of some person's hare-brained hypothesis that "there might be a zugzwang for either side". That is not evidence. There is no evidence that chess is a forced win. All the evidence we have is that chess is drawn. We can only go off evidence. If the evidence is systemised and a theoretical structure is found which incorporates it, then theory may be built on that structure and people may then talk of "theoretical proofs that chess is drawn".

But ALL theory is based on evidence, or it's worthless and cannot be considered to be "theory". There are some people who don't understand that. In return, I'm not going to place trust in their intellectual abilities. I would not wish them to be in any position of leadership where their decisions could affect the futures of us all. Obviously, they are not going to be in a position where they can influence people who themselves are intellectually accomplished. It really does boil down to that. If you talk rubbish, no matter what your rhetorical ability or debating skills, you will never influence cleverer people than you. Only duller people. I'm sure a great future might be built on influencing dull people. That's called advertising and propaganda.

Wrong thread, Sherlock. This is "luck in chess".

Well, I know I said it would happen frequently...but damn.

The two subjects are very strongly related with one another. You answered me (badly) and I think that argument is over now, as is the one about luck in chess. It's been definitively shown that luck exists in chess as it exists everywhere there's a human observer to interpret apparent chance events as luck or bad luck. Equally, I have demonstrated that solving chess isn't about some fake theory advanced by half-baked "experts in game theory" and neither does the argument depend on some specious claim that chess MIGHT be a forced win for black or for white, since there's no evidence at all for it. Pigs might fly. Arguments like that also depend on luck .... that there's someone dim enough to believe you.

Also the discussion has apparently moved to one on Risk in the solving chess thread and you're happily talking about Risk variants there. I didn't want to disturb your concentration.

Lol. Nothing quite so amusing as someone pontificating about how smart they are and then watching them turn around and walk right into an open manhole...unless it's watching them say "I meant to do that..." afterwards.

I got one: You win by default, because your opponent showed up wearing the wrong trousers.

Victory, through no fault of your own.

That would be lucky.

You've never played table tennis properly? They're equal. I preferred tennis but they use identical skill sets. In each case one finds oneself hitting a ball perfectly even though one can't see it at all. Bad analogy, although I agree that slow chess is the most challenging and stimulating.

Your opponent set fire to his trousers during the game and in his anguish, resigned by mistake?

Your powers of invention bear no relation to a metaphorical account of our past interactions; except, as usual, in your fevered imagination.

I expect you'll be trying to convince your very limited group of admirers that you'd meant to win your arguments every time but were tricked into always saying the wrong thing?

The reality seems to be that you flounder around making personal comments and then if the other person replies in kind it's "mummy he's being nasty to me!! He started it!!"

Luck in chess comes when you play a beginner.

Luck in chess is actually a miss, mistake or blunder of your opponent.