01 Jul 06
4 edits
Originally posted by exigentskyA chess competition between two non-omnicscient players is not deterministic.
Chess is a game of complete information and there is no chance involved.
You can't determine before the game who will win - you don't have sufficient information to decide with certainty.
What is chance, if not a lack of information?
When you read an annotated game and the author makes claims like "Black has chosen a risky defense," do you think the author doesn't know what he is talking about? How can there be risk, in your view of chess?
Do you think the Elo rating system is making an absurd claim when it says the the 1640 player beats the 1400 player with probability .8? Don't you empirically observe that the Elo system's predictions are approximately correct?
Besides, what is at issue here is not whether chess has chance as an inherent component. At issue is whether the decision to pay money for the opportunity to win more money by entering a chess tournament is a decision made under uncertainty. If it is, then the decision to pay money to enter a poker tournament is identical in this regard.
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by exigentskyIf you had enough information, there would be no games of chance at all. I think you mean a more specific sense, ie information about your opponent's side of the game is not hidden, which indeed is a distinction setting chess apart from some gambling games such as poker, although not against all, like roulette.
Chess is a game of complete information and there is no chance involved. It is not gambling.
Chess obviously isn't gambling, btw. You pay to enter a cinema and may find a wallet stuffed full of cash beneath your chair; this doesn't mean a cinema stub is also a lottery ticket.
01 Jul 06
13 edits
Originally posted by TommyCWhy not? Because you are paying to enjoy the movie?
Chess obviously isn't gambling, btw. You pay to enter a cinema and may find a wallet stuffed full of cash beneath your chair; this doesn't mean a cinema stub is also a lottery ticket.
If the poker player is paying to enjoy the game, the competition or the comeraderie, is it still gambling?
Further, why am I the only one willing to address the elephant in the living room of the "chess tournaments aren't gambling and poker tournaments are" camp -
the theory behind the Elo system that we all accept as empirically meaningful when it claims the the outcome of any given game is a non-deterministic, probabilistic function of the players' ratings.
For example, suppose a 1600 player is about to play a 1400 player, and you are offered even odds to wager that the 1600 player will win. Does this wager offer a positive expectation? Do you have a possibility of winning the wager? Do you have a possibility of losing the wager? Does there exist an n such that being offered n-to-1 odds would make betting on the 1400 to win a positive expectation wager? Reconcile your answers to these four questions with your view of chess not having an element of chance - that is, account for the variance in the outcomes of the above wagers without appealing to incomplete information.
01 Jul 06
Bowling used to be against the law in U.S. many, many years ago. So was the consumption of alcohol eighty-odd years ago. Now we have both. Chess is frowned upon in religious countries because it has no religious purpose, like praying, self-mutilation, and hating people of a different religion, which is ok. It's ironic that Iran bans chess, because that part of the world contributed much to the development of the game, as well as science, art, etc. Now all that is past...
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIf you're going to argue - 13 edits later - that a cinema stub is the same as a lottery ticket, then . . . well, I'm just not going to bother engaging further in this silly debate. But one thing possibly worth mentioning that you might be curious to know is that GM Jan Hein Donner wrote some times about chess as a game of chance; further, his selected chess journalism has recently been published in Engish in a book called "The King: Chess Pieces".
Why not? Because you are paying to enjoy the movie?
If the poker player is paying to enjoy the game, the competition or the comeraderie, is it still gambling?
Further, why am I the only one willing to address the elephant in the living room of the "chess tournaments aren't gambling and poker tournaments are" camp -
the theory behind the El ...[text shortened]... he variance in the outcomes of the above wagers without appealing to incomplete information.
01 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by TommyCIt's just as well. You're not really a very good debater. Further, you may not be aware of this, but I'm officially the reigning champion of RHP debate. Combine those facts with your untenable position, and your prospects in futher engagement aren't good.
If you're going to argue - 13 edits later - that a cinema stub is the same as a lottery ticket, then . . . well, I'm just not going to bother engaging further in this silly debate.
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHilarious. But wait a minute. As there's always a lack of information involved in any debate, about both the subject and debatees, how is it any so-called victory would not be entirely random?
It's just as well. You're not really a very good debater. Further, you may not be aware of this, but I'm officially the reigning champion of RHP debate. Combine that fact with your untenable position, and your prospects in futher engagement aren't good.
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by TommyCBecause the stochastic process yielding the outcome was not equivalent to drawing a debater's name from a hat. In the championship debate, I was the more skilled debater, and I was defending the more tenable position, so it was probable, although not certain, that I would win.
Hilarious. But wait a minute. As there's always a lack of information involved in any debate, about both the subject and debatees, how is it any so-called victory would not be entirely random?
01 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOh dear. You've gone from funny ha-ha to funny dur-r-rrr. Please try harder.
Because the stochastic process yielding the outcome was not equivalent to drawing a debater's name from a hat. In the championship debate, I was the more skilled debater, and I was defending the more tenable position, so it was probable, although not certain, that I would win.