01 Jul 06
i think the main distinction between gambling and chess is that in chess it is solely the players' skills that determine the outcome. More like a sporting competition than gambling. Someone proposed a wager on a 1400 v 1600 match his act IS gambling because he is a step removed from control. Similar to a fan who bets on his team.
Poker, backgammon and other games where chance mixes with skill are a form of gambling and the lack of total access to information increases the gambling aspect in chess all of your opponents actions are open to you, as oppose to some variants where a certain level of luck enters the game.
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by aginisThis is false.
in chess all of your opponents actions are open to you
You don't know what openings your opponent has studied and is currently well-versed in.
Thus, your opening move is a decision under uncertainty. You may pick an opening that plays right into his expertise, or you may pick a move where you have an advantage in expertise, and you can't know ahead of time which is which, although you can make a probabilistic assessment about which openings are most likely to take your opponent into unfamiliar territory.
01 Jul 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPreperation is not actually part of the game. Even given an openning your opponent is well versed with, all his options are open to you. I think thats like saying you don't know what he had for breakfast, it might affect the game indirectly but is irrelevant in terms of how you play.
This is false.
You don't know what openings your opponent has studied and is currently well-versed in.
Thus, your opening move is a decision under uncertainty. You may pick an opening that plays right into his expertise, or you may pick a move where you have an advantage in expertise, and you can't know ahead of time which is which, althoug ...[text shortened]... sessment about which openings are most likely to take your opponent into unfamiliar territory.
02 Jul 06
2 edits
Originally posted by aginisAre you telling me that if you knew your opponent had memorized 100 lines in the Sicilian defenses but had never seen a line of the QGD, and you were equally proficient in both, that information would not affect your decision about whether to play e4 or d4 as White?
Preperation is not actually part of the game. Even given an openning your opponent is well versed with, all his options are open to you. I think thats like saying you don't know what he had for breakfast, it might affect the game indirectly but is irrelevant in terms of how you play.
If that information would affect your decision, but that information is not available to you, then how can you call chess a game of complete information?
It's no different than the fact that you don't know your poker opponent's hole cards, but if you did, you could use that information to your advantage.
02 Jul 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou still won't answer my question so i'm going to write it a different way. This is the reason I don't call chess gambling.
A chess competition between two non-omnicscient players is not deterministic.
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 yo ...[text shortened]... , then the decision to pay money to enter a poker tournament is identical in this regard.
2 People sit down to play a game in a big tournament. Forget about thier skill level. Do they not start with equal material? YES!
Thus there is no luck. The outcome of the game is on your shoulders.
Now, 8 players start playing poker. All of them get different cards. Right away there is an imbalance in material = cards.
Thus since poker is not fair and chess is, poker is gambling. Forget about skill.
With your thinking all of these are gambling:
Bridge, checkers, chess, poker, tennis, a whole bunch of other sports with entry fees and prices.
02 Jul 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWho cares about skill? That has nothing to do with it.
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.
If you suck it's your own fault. The point is at the beginning of the game you have and equal chance to win the game. A 1600 vs 1600 both have an equal shot to win the game. Read a book, study etc... and get better at chess. Skill has nothing to do with it.
2 poker players with the same skill level are dealt different cards. Right away it's not 50-50. It's one sided.
02 Jul 06
Originally posted by aginisThank you.
i think the main distinction between gambling and chess is that in chess it is solely the players' skills that determine the outcome. More like a sporting competition than gambling. Someone proposed a wager on a 1400 v 1600 match his act IS gambling because he is a step removed from control. Similar to a fan who bets on his team.
Poker, backgammon and other ...[text shortened]... ions are open to you, as oppose to some variants where a certain level of luck enters the game.
In Chess is solely depends on the players skill.
In Poker it depends on your skill and THE CARDS YOU ARE DEALT( CHANCE, LUCK) . Thus poker is gambling and chess isn't.
Case closed!
02 Jul 06
Originally posted by RahimKSo, when a game is played with rook odds, you would call that gambling, by virtue of the unequal material?
This is the reason I don't call chess gambling.
2 People sit down to play a game in a big tournament. Forget about thier skill level. Do they not start with equal material? YES!
02 Jul 06
3 edits
Originally posted by RahimKAre you saying that if you are wagering on events with equilikely outcomes ("equal chance", "equal shot" ) that you are not gambling?
The point is at the beginning of the game you have and equal chance to win the game. A 1600 vs 1600 both have an equal shot to win the game.
Suppose we flip a coin, and if it lands heads, I pay you a dollar, and if it lands tails, you pay me a dollar. We both have an equal chance, an equal shot to win. Aren't we gambling?
02 Jul 06
Originally posted by exigentskyThat's what I've been trying to extract from him all along, since he first made a claim in another thread that his religion prohibited gambling and thus he could not play poker but he could play chess. He has still refused to say what constitutes gambling with respect to this religious edict.
Perhaps we are not all clear on what gambling actually is. We must all agree to a clear definition of the term. Thus, I ask the initiator of this thread, what is meant by gambling?