Originally posted by Dragon FireMaybe I am arguing the wrong point. Is this issue in this thread whether "chess" is gambling or whether entering a tournament in gambling. The two are entirely different yet both are gambling. Gambling does not have to involve money. It merely involves and unknown result based upon your decision. You cannot tell me you know the exact result of a game when you decide to play 1. e4. You merely are playing the odds that it will maximize your chance of winning/drawing. Why do people say it's not gambling then we read theads talking about "good openings" because they win 60%. Now if that's not gambling, what is?
If you WERE entering a tournament and paying a fee with the objective of winning a prize and in doing so you weighed up all the odds and costs and decided to take your chances, the odds being in your favour then, all things being equal, that could be defined as a gamble.
... but all things are not equal. Chess is a game of skill not a game of chance a ...[text shortened]... e not and on the balance of probabilities the 147 - 3 decision towards not gambling is decisive.
The best way I can explain this is to imagine you are playing the Lord God Almighty. He is all-knowing and thus will play perfect chess. If you make a mistake, you will lose. Now when you play 1.e4, God knows whether perfect play will result in a win/lose/draw for Him and will play accordingly. Therefore, when you make a move, you are saying "I am X% sure this move is winning/drawing. Since that is the highest % of all the moves, I will take those chances." You do not say, "This move is mate in 36." If you could, the game would be solved. Therefore, you must be making a calculated risk every time you move. Same as poker. I think I have the best hand, I bet. I'm getting odds to call, I call. Same thing. I hate chess player who think they are all knowing and there is not risks involved in chess even though every chess book written will have some line in it the is considered "risky". It's all about making correct decisions. The longer and harder you study and play, the closer you get to making the correct decision.
Originally posted by Dragon FireLOL. Thanks for the reminder of why I gave up debating here.
I am not confused!
You are simply being illogical and resort to these meaningly refutations simply because there is no basis for your assertions and to reply on empirical evidence would simply result in your total and absolute annililation.
If you only knew how foolish you look to people who are competent with critical thinking, you would be ashamed. You're speaking in blatant contradictions and you don't even know it.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNo I am not I am being provacative in a way designed to contibute to the debate.
LOL. Thanks for the reminder of why I gave up debating here.
If you only knew how foolish you look to people who are competent with critical thinking, you would be ashamed. You're speaking in blatant contradictions and you don't even know it.
As I personally don't gamble I better give up chess!
Originally posted by Dragon FireBetter give up life too, since everything is a gamble. I guess that is really the point. You never know and can only play the odds. That is probably the best thing poker taught me. You may win, you may lose, but in the long run making the right odds play will win out.
No I am not I am being provacative in a way designed to contibute to the debate.
As I personally don't gamble I better give up chess!
Rahim,
If you make a mistake in a chess game; then obviously, you don't have control.
You also don't have control over your opponent. What do you think? Therefore, paying money to enter a tournament which returns money or non-money as a prize seems to me to be gambling.
KingOnPoint
Originally posted by KingOnPointTo me chess is mainly about skill. Sure there are other little things like which color, if your hungry, had sleep but mainly it's about skill.
Rahim,
If you make a mistake in a chess game; then obviously, you don't have control.
You also don't have control over your opponent. What do you think? Therefore, paying money to enter a tournament which returns money or non-money as a prize seems to me to be gambling.
KingOnPoint
If you make a mistake it's your own fault. Yes you don't have control over your opponent but every game is like that. So it chess it has to do with skill.
Poker as well as other card games involves skill but there is also the dealer who influence the game in a big way.
That is why to me poker and a whole bunch of other card games are gambling.
You can make a mistake in a soccer game, football, hockey etc... and it's your teams fault. If anyone thinks chess is gambling then why aren't these sport games gambling? It's the same thing really.
All these sports and chess are basically the same. In chess you are controlling your team just like a soccer coach is controlling his team.
In poker that's not the case.
Plus in chess people mostly enter to have fun get better not win money. How often do players win money.
As for poker, lots of people enter to win money don't they? That's mainly the goal.
Why do people go to casinos and play poker?
Why do people go to a chess club?
Chess isn't gambling.
Originally posted by exigentskyAccording to the OED the following is a (slightly shortened) definition of gambling -
Rahim, how do you define gambling? It's impossible to have a constructive discussion when the definitions cannot be agreed upon.
1. to play games of chance to win money;
2. to risk or bet on the outcome of an event;
3. to act with the expectation of (eg to gamble on it being a sunny day);
4. to lose by or as if by betting;
5. a risky act or venture;
6. a bet or wager.
Clearly (in my opinion at any rate) the only definition that could encompass chess is 5. So we need to define a risky act or venture.
According to the OED the definition of risk includes -
1. the possibilitity of incurring misfortune or loss;
2. to act in spite of the possibility of loss.
so in a chess game there is clearly the possibility of a loss so presumably that makes it a risky act and a risky act is a gamble.
Oh dear - I thought chess was a game of skill!
Originally posted by Dragon FireThe game of chess itself, excluding wagering or money, is not gambling. You people implement the definition of "loss" or "risky act" way out of context. There's nothing risky about losing a game of chess (unless you're a mentally disturbed bloke).
According to the OED the following is a (slightly shortened) definition of gambling -
1. to play games of chance to win money;
2. to risk or bet on the outcome of an event;
3. to act with the expectation of (eg to gamble on it being a sunny day);
4. to lose by or as if by betting;
5. a risky act or venture;
6. a bet or wager.
Clearly (in my opin ...[text shortened]... es it a risky act and a risky act is a gamble.
Oh dear - I thought chess was a game of skill!
And it has nothing to do with skill or luck. Poker without wagering something of real value (not play chips) is not gambling either.
Further to my previous post it isnot realistic to compare chess to poker.
Chess is a game of skill whereas poker is a game of chance (usually played for money). If two equally skilled players play 100 games the likelihood is that they will each score 50% whereas in poker if you deal 5 cards to each of 2 players 100 times and count up the score it will be unchanged regardless of the skill of the individual players. The weaker player may simply be dealt the better cards. So in poker a player is gambling on being dealt better cards whereas in chess we are all dealt the same 16 peices at the start. The skill in poker comes in knowing when to fold a weaker hand but you gamble that your hand is indeed weaker because you cannot see the others. In chess you have total visibility so there is no gamble here. You either stand better or worse, you certainly don't gamble that you stand better when you are a queen down (unless you have a forced mate you are absolutely certain you stand worse).
So compared to poker chess is not gambling.
But what about comparing it to something else. If you are a mountain climber you are clearly a very skilled individual. If you decide to climb Everest then you are taking on a very risky endevour, you are gambling, with your life.
So if one skilled activity can be a gamble cannot another what is a player of 2000 playing a 1200 gambling if anything. He expects to win but in a small percentage of cases he will draw or even lose. He risks losing a lot of rating points in such circumstances but maybe he risks more - if he loses he risks his phycological well being and stands to lose face amoung his peers. Therefore in accepting the challenge he is taking a risk and by definition (above prior post) by taking a risk he is gambling.
Originally posted by exigentskyI already wrote that in a previous post after someone asked me. Its there somewhere. Don't have time right now.
Rahim, how do you define gambling? It's impossible to have a constructive discussion when the definitions cannot be agreed upon.
I see you guys calling it gambling chance well then to me chance is part of gambling.
Is there chance in chess? Not really.
In poker yes, the cards you are dealt. Thus poker is gambling to me. Chess isn't gambling to me.
Originally posted by Dragon FireExcellent!
Further to my previous post it isnot realistic to compare chess to poker.
Chess is a game of skill whereas poker is a game of chance (usually played for money). If two equally skilled players play 100 games the likelihood is that they will each score 50% whereas in poker if you deal 5 cards to each of 2 players 100 times and count up the score it will ...[text shortened]... lenge he is taking a risk and by definition (above prior post) by taking a risk he is gambling.