Ed Smith's Luck Paradox

So, following on from yesterday (Why Luck Matters) ...

Ed Smith, we know, believes that luck doesn't play much of a role in chess. He writes this on page 202 of his book and, just so we know it wasn't a casual aside, he repeats the claim on page 203. There are "chess-type sports (where chance is negligible)" and "backgammon-type games (where chance is very important)", he says.

Bad luck Warney
*Chortles*

All well and good, but in an earlier chapter, Smith asks himself the question

What do I mean by 'luck'?

and decides

Luck is that which is beyond my control.

True, he goes on to muddy the waters somewhat by introducing the concept of chance - and for Smith chance is related to probabilities and is therefore non-random (and therefore not luck at all) - but by the end of the chapter he returns to his original proposition:-

Luck is what happens to me that is outside my control.

What is included here? Well,

Winning the lottery is luck. My genes are luck. My parents are luck. It is luck if an opponents drops a catch when I am batting.

If Warne grassing a sitter is luck then an opponent blundering his or her queen certainly is. In fact every move our opponents play must be luck, since it is by definition outside of our control.

For Smith, then, chess is both a game that is more or less without luck and also, according to his own argument, it's 50% luck at least.