Is there such thing as "luck" in chess?

Sometimes luck helps...

Sometimes duck helps?

So you went with "D"...

It was not my only thought

The Guy back to his trolling that he's 'more intelligent' which translates to mean he's less intelligent. Far less intelligent. His trollling leads to more and more foolish emotionalism by him which leads to him getting muted by the website. Including several long mutes last year.
Reason for mentioning: The guy would prefer people don't know that he gets himself muted by the chess.com staff. He wants to build an aura or bubble around himself. But it constantly gets burst. A masochistic cycle he is stuck in for the rest of his life.

Agreed. Tennis is a bigger more complete game which adds the element of volleying before the ball has bounced. I would say another analogy is that checkers is to chess as ping pong is to tennis and croquet is to golf.
------------------------------------
and there will be 'spinoffs'.
Computer programming is relevant to 'solving' chess.
Today I found out that Cmd using winget can find the AHK (autohotkey) utility on my computer but cmd by itself cannot. Or didn't. Even Cmd invoking mighty Powershell didn't.
Also cmd invoking winget could download and install AHK off the internet whereas downloading the AHK exe installer from its 'mirrors' resulted in an exe in the download folder that refuses to do anything.
What would Dev people use to write their scripts for Stockfish and for tablebasing?
I don't know. Python? 
Its supposedly on my computer but I don't want that Snake wrapping around me ...
I found out that Devcon is severe bloat for my purposes but I could see how Dev people would like it.

Python is pretty innocuous. It's much easier to get into trouble with other languages. I would certainly hope that tablebases (or at least the most relevant routines that do all the brute calculation) are written in assembly language. If not, they are adding a raftload of time to the process that could easily be eliminated. But, the development world being what it is, there's a good chance many are written in some variant of C. The number of low level language developers becomes smaller with each passing year, and most developers do not even know what lies beneath the protocol layers and virtual machines they run their software on.

BTW, a general statement since I did not reply to every post fired my way by other posters...

My point about ping pong vs. tennis was not that ping pong does not require skills...it's that ping pong is relatively useless, unprofitable, and frankly silly, thus not the best way to spend your finite amount of time on the planet. If you love it anyway, by all means have at it, but it would be like giving up being a notable Go player to play "blitz" Connect Four. Exciting for some but useless in general and a clear step down the cultural ladder rungs of respected games, if accolades that mean something is something one is concerned with.

Yes I would expect that tablebasing is done with machine language and assembly language but perhaps with 'assists' from higher languages like C and its variants with writing the machine/assembly code.
Regarding python being a 'snake' I was just making a pun - it appears to be on my system but I'm not completely sure it really is. I know close to nothing about computer languages.
I like the idea of using Cmd to 'wrap' other scripts so I'm always starting with it and for other reasons.
The scripts I'm forming are for one particular use.
And I wouldn't have dreamed of writing any scripts at all - if AI hadn't come along.
AI makes many many mistakes and I have to hold its hand constantly.
Up until AI showed up - even the word 'script' was a turnoff.
And words/phrases like 'API' and 'stack overflow'. They're still red flags.
But my experience is that its better having/using AI than not.

Only vaguely relevant since if you haven't much idea about what's meant by solving chess and about what is actually possible, no amount of programming ability can help you.

I see you're back to your trolling again. Please leave it out and try to grow up a bit.

so whos going to drive each other insane by trolling first optimissed or playerafar ?

No

Honestly though, what else can I say but that if you're thick enough to imagine that I make frequent mistakes, who's going to believe anything you say except one or two equally dim trolls? You're a complete an utter baby, with rattle.

"Calling out" requires an ability to make an argument. You do not possess that ability. Tell you what? You stay here with your few friends and don't stalk people on other threads??

The O-guy talks about pingpong and then complains when others diverge also.
His imaginary-authority bubble constantly being burst.
He gets angrier and angrier (foolishly) and more and more desperate and eventually gets himself muted. Again.
-----------------------------
Hey BC - Happy New Year
And as for 'too much for the O-person' many qualify - including .... the guy who is also 'AD'

I don't stalk people. That's you. Sometimes it seems like all you have in your arsenal is projection.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/does-true-randomness-actually-exist?page=108#comment-49143598

"Let me bore you with a little about me. I started a Facebook account circa 2003 or 4 and got into debating. I was interested in varied subjects. At one time, unasked for, I was being called "the best debater in English on Facebook". Naturally, there were several hundred people who tried to "win" arguments with me. It was like being a fast gun in the West. Tedious.
In my one previous incarnation here on Chess.com, several years before this one, I met up with Elroch and in those days he was such an obvious troll that I spent an hour investigating him. I found out his name, his job and the name of the village near Cambridge he lived in. Just in case. It's as well to be aware of who some people are.

There are trolls and trolls and some of them are intelligent and subtle. Most people are no match for them at all. His thing is "control". That's all .... control and selling his self-image of the perfect intellect."

Indeed, it is good to be aware of who some people are.

For some reason my last post didn't post.
Anyway - Dio and Elroch each Far too much for the O-person.
And it can be funny to watch.

Any such thing as Luck in chess?
Yes - but depends on definitions of luck and also views of things in general.
Randomness versus order. Pre-determination. Random pre-determination.
Pre-determination by design. No total control.
Views vary greatly on such things.

I remember that claim about Facebook. If Opti was a college student, he could have joined FB in 2004. Otherwise, he had to wait until 2006 like the rest of us.

What is this mumble jumble about depends on definition, this view, that view? No it doesn't. We rigorously analyse the definitions and views on luck and find out which one logically fits chess in respect to other games and events where we agree luck exists. There is no luck in chess because the game is simply deterministic and the rules dont allow luck anyhow. Outcomes are determined by strictly skill. A meteor can strike during the game but thats not a part of chess. That means luck happened in life during a game of chess. The chess game doesnt get finished according to the rules.

Also can we stick to the topic? All this nonsense, O-person this, that. Youre not any better are you, with personal attacks that take space from real conversation here on a chess forum.

Chess isn't deterministic unless you think we live in a deterministic universe with no randomness.

But thanks anyway. He's very obsessive and he can't help it. There are two of them here but occasionally there are two or three others who join in. It's quite fantastic how they manage to dominate threads and it wouldn't happen if people had better judgement about whom to take seriously and what trolling actually is.

The idea that we inhabit a universe which is deterministic by design implies a designer. That is because there is a very strong appearance of randomness throughout the universe, which would have to be simulated. Therefore mechanisms for the simulation of randomness (to what purpose?) would need to be designed. All this implies that our universe is the product of another universe, which is itself a deterministic product of a further universe ad infinitum.

Infinite causal regression is implied by this premise, which makes it unscientific. The scientific premise, since it requires the least number of unknowns (which means invented or ad hoc ideas to prop up a bad hypothesis), is true randomness. It also entails no multiverse, which is illogical for other reasons than this but which, again, is an unscientific hypothesis, since different universes are only different if completely exterior to THIS one. Hence there could not be any evidence. Hence, unscientific due to the necessary absence of evidence.