Same in golf, you can hit a perfect drive down the middle and end up in a divot.
It is a philosophical disagreement I think. In golf the disagreement is highlighted by the difference between match play and stroke play. I like match play and came to appreciate the differences in architecture that favored one or the other after joining a place with a course better suited to match play than stroke play. Pros hate the luck factor on holes like the 17th at TPC. A triple after 70 holes of solid play that costs them big money is no good. Pressing your friend in a Nassau and seeing him play first on a windy day is fun. Winning a skin with a birdie on a quirky hole is fun. Stroke play is better for TV and national opens. But the idea that perfect “fairness” is good isn’t always true in sports and games.
Poker is a really good example too. Until the boom and the advent of capped buy in no- limit, it was rare to find a no limit game that lasted in a public card room. Mason Malmuth wrote about this. Luck and skill need to be balanced so bad players can have winning days. In the long run the good players win, but providers get a chance to win and the casino gets longer term steady rake. Games that were too skillful or simple died - 5 card stud, razz. 7 card stud and holdem were more balanced and better. Hi-lo with no 8 or better qualifier didn’t work. In no limit the good players busted the bad ones too quickly back in the day.
So the philosophy is perfect justice vs some variety, art, luck etc…. To me penal golf architecture is less interesting than risk- reward or strategic type holes.
Perfect justice is only to be found in the next life. Here and now we have to strive for justice in serious endeavors. In sport or gambling luck is always there to some degree. Skill should be rewarded. But not every single shot, game, etc…. Our sports shouldn’t be trials with never ending appeals to achieve perfect fairness.
Chess is there when luck or physical execution is not desired. A spectator game it isn’t tho.