06 Jul 06
I think there is debate on what gambling actually is. Does it even involve money? Some are debating that gambling is determined by the amount of "luck" involved in the game. Others are saying that it is only when money is involved. I am more inclined to go with the "luck" camp on this. If it is based on luck, then I would say yes, chess is a form of gambling. Everytime you make a move, you are saying I am placing my game on the line that this move is winning/drawing. It you only can see 2,3 or 4 moves ahead, you're gambling that in 15 moves you will be winning with this move. You do not have any certainty that you are correct. Only an expectation, be it 50% or 99.99999%. Same goes for poker. It is all about expectation. When Kasparov moves, he has not looked at every single branch of the tree to see if his move is optimal (at least in the opening). He is making a decision based on which move gives him the highest expected value. Kasparov may be playing with higher numbers (90-98😵 than a poker pro (high 50's or 60's), but they are still "gambling" in a sense. The only time the is not gambling in chess is when you see a mate. That would be the same as having a royal flush in poker. Defining gambling by money is an absurd practice. You could say the stock market is "gambling" or any business is "gambling" with that definition. The legality is different and that can be debated later. I really think you have to say that chess is a form of gambling with a less volitile expectation. If it wasn't, then the game would be solved and pointless to play.
06 Jul 06
Originally posted by GammastyleThat is exactly correct.
If it is based on luck, then I would say yes, chess is a form of gambling. Everytime you make a move, you are saying I am placing my game on the line that this move is winning/drawing. It you only can see 2,3 or 4 moves ahead, you're gambling that in 15 moves you will be winning with this move. You do not have any certainty that you are correct. Only ...[text shortened]... itile expectation. If it wasn't, then the game would be solved and pointless to play.
06 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by GammastyleEverytime you make a move, you are saying I am placing my game on the line that this move is winning/drawing.
I think there is debate on what gambling actually is. Does it even involve money? Some are debating that gambling is determined by the amount of "luck" involved in the game. Others are saying that it is only when money is involved. I am more inclined to go with the "luck" camp on this. If it is based on luck, then I would say yes, chess is a form of e expectation. If it wasn't, then the game would be solved and pointless to play.
This is skill. If you don't have it blame yourself. Is soccer gambling? I am placing my game on the line that this kick will go in. Is hockey gambling? Same thing. It all has to do with skill.
Poker is completely different.
You have say 5 cards each, place your bets and then the dealer flops some cards. Do you have any control over the flop? Do you have any control over the cards you are dealt with?
2 more questions for you.
You lose a chess game, who do you blame? __________.
You lose a poker game, who do you blame? ______ and ______ .
Exactly my point!
06 Jul 06
Although chance is a much bigger factor in poker, I think there's still a lot of skill involved. If it's all luck, then why are there poker champions? Why are some people extremely good at poker while others aren't? It's not because they're just lucky. To play a good poker game, you have to make the best out of the hand you're dealt, and some people are just really good at that. Just as in chess, you have to play the opening your opponent chooses, whether you like it or not.
Remember also that a game of poker is only a few minutes, and the real winner isn't decided until after a number a games. Whereas, a single game of chess can last a long time. In a poker game, if you're dealt a bad hand, it only lasts for that one hand. You accept the loss and move on (or try to bluff your opponent, which is a skill in of itself).
Not to say that I agree that chess is as much gambling as poker, but I think poker isn't always about who was dealt the better hand.
06 Jul 06
Originally posted by RahimKThis thing we are calling "luck" and "skill" have not been adequately defined. I would argue that seeing 30 moves deep is as difficult as watching a shuffle of the cards and knowing what order they were in. So in either case, you should blame yourself in both you're silly questions. If you can't watch the shuffle and know what is coming, you should "study harder" as an earlier poster said. Since no one on this planet can say that they know what every move tree will result in and play perfectly, they has to be some element of "gambling" involved in each move. Why play 1. e4? Does it win? How? You don't know. You go from history that it has one of the best chances of winning. So it's not all skill. It is evaluating a positon, finding a decision that gives you the best chance of winning/drawing and doing it. Anytime you are not 100% when you make a decision, you are GAMBLING. I will grant you that chess has a much smaller variance in it's decisions. That does not totally eliminate the gambling aspect. Gambling = uncertainty. That is really all there is to it. Tic-Tac-Toe is not gambling because you know every possible outcome of a particular move, so you do have complete information. Chess, as much as you wish this to be the case, is not a complete information game for a mere mortal
Everytime you make a move, you are saying I am placing my game on the line that this move is winning/drawing.
This is skill. If you don't have it blame yourself. Is soccer gambling? I am placing my game on the line that this kick will go in. Is hockey gambling? Same thing. It all has to do with skill.
Poker is completely different.
You have say 5 ...[text shortened]... _________.
You lose a poker game, who do you blame? ______ and ______ .
Exactly my point!
06 Jul 06
Originally posted by EnigmaticCamI'm not saying poker is only about who is dealt what.
Although chance is a much bigger factor in poker, I think there's still a lot of skill involved. If it's all luck, then why are there poker champions? Why are some people extremely good at poker while others aren't? It's not because they're just lucky. To play a good poker game, you have to make the best out of the hand you're dealt, and some people are ...[text shortened]... gambling as poker, but I think poker isn't always about who was dealt the better hand.
I'm saying that there is skill involved in poker but also who is dealt what which you can't control.
As for your opponent playing different openings. If you can't play all the openings just as good then it's your own fault. You have no one to blame but yourself.
06 Jul 06
Originally posted by GammastyleI might be wrong on this but isn't watching the cards and shuffling called counting cards?
This thing we are calling "luck" and "skill" have not been adequately defined. I would argue that seeing 30 moves deep is as difficult as watching a shuffle of the cards and knowing what order they were in. So in either case, you should blame yourself in both you're silly questions. If you can't watch the shuffle and know what is coming, you should "st ...[text shortened]... you wish this to be the case, is not a complete information game for a mere mortal
Counting cards is illegal.
So throw that out the window. So you can still blame the dealer for poker. In chess you have no one but yourself to blame.
06 Jul 06
Originally posted by RahimKYou still don't get it. Yes you only have yourself to blame in chess, but there is still gambling involved. The blame is that you made a bad bet. You bet your move was winning/drawing and you were wrong. If it wasn't a gamble, you would never lose. You would already know what the winning move was. Is there skill involved, yes. Is the "gambling" aspect as clear as say playing the lottery: no. You asked if chess is gambling. I say it is. However, my definition of gambling is probably different than yours. I see gambling as making a decision with less than 100% certainty. Therefore, everything in life is a gamble. Somethings have different odds, but they are never 100%. Just keep adding those 9's on the right of 99.99999... If you are going to ask if something is gambling, you have to define gambling. I think I proved it was under my definition. We'll have to see about your definition.
I might be wrong on this but isn't watching the cards and shuffling called counting cards?
Counting cards is illegal.
So throw that out the window. So you can still blame the dealer for poker. In chess you have no one but yourself to blame.
Also, that is not card counting. Card counting is remembering what cards have shown and using that information to increase your odds. This is actually a skill that is needed in poker, especially 7-stud. Lastly, it's not illegal. Casino's don't like it and will ban you, but it isn't illegal so throw that arguement out the window.
07 Jul 06
Originally posted by GammastyleI seen stories about people counting cards and the casino breaks some bones, kickes them out, does worst. A big risk people are taking.
You still don't get it. Yes you only have yourself to blame in chess, but there is still gambling involved. The blame is that you made a bad bet. You bet your move was winning/drawing and you were wrong. If it wasn't a gamble, you would never lose. You would already know what the winning move was. Is there skill involved, yes. Is the "gambling" asp ...[text shortened]... like it and will ban you, but it isn't illegal so throw that arguement out the window.
So according to that definition of gambling, all the sports are gambling since you are never 100% sure.
Soccer, hockey, football etc... I don't agree.
07 Jul 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe ELO rating system is based on probability theory. A 1600 player being better has (say) an 80% chance of beating a 1400 player.
Will you reconcile your position with the Elo rating system, or will you ignore the issue like everybody else?
If they play 100 games and during the course of those games neither players rating changes then the higher rated played will win 80 games. There is no chance in this it is a 100% certainty.
Therefore there is no gambling involved as gambling involves an element of chance not relevant to chess. You could of course gamble on chess and in these circumstances you would offer odds of 1/4 on the stronger player and 4/1 on the weaker in any individual game (in fact to get your margin the odds would probably be 7/2 and 2/7 (say) but the players themselves are not gambling.
The probability is of course that the higher rated player would win a tournament and the prize fund always if sufficient games were played. In most tournaments however insufficient games are played and probability theory does not make the win a certainty. But the player is not gambling.
In poker, however, the cards are not known but if a player had a Royal Flush you could argue that he is not gambling either as his probability of winning is an absolute certainty.
07 Jul 06
Originally posted by Dragon FireIt's more accurately called a tautology rather than a certainty.
If they play 100 games and during the course of those games neither players rating changes then the higher rated played will win 80 games. There is no chance in this it is a 100% certainty.
Further, it presumes the certainty of the antecedent, which is of course absurd, both because the antecedant of your claim is empirically untrue, and because that is where the focus of this dicussion lies. You are simply assuming to be true that which you intend to prove. You should rethink your argument.
07 Jul 06
3 edits
Originally posted by Dragon FireThis, of course, is the heart of the matter. By paying to enter a tournament, you are wagering on yourself to win, taking the odds implied by the ratings of the field and the tournament structure, with the outcome being uncertain.
You could of course gamble on chess and in these circumstances you would offer odds of 1/4 on the stronger player and 4/1 on the weaker in any individual game (in fact to get your margin the odds would probably be 7/2 and 2/7 (say) but the players themselves are not gambling.
If this is not gambling, I don't know what is.
07 Jul 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIf 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.
This, of course, is the heart of the matter. By paying to enter a tournament, you are wagering on yourself to win, taking the odds implied by the ratings of the field and the tournament structure, with the outcome being uncertain.
If this is not gambling, I don't know what is.
... but all things are not equal. Chess is a game of skill not a game of chance and you are not gambling on your skill in the way you are gambling on being dealt another Ace in poker. Your skill is something that you know with absolute certainty therefore you are not making a gamble. Of course most people enter tournaments with the objective of having an enjoyable weekend and no thought of the prize money. Having no intention of winning anything they clearly are not gambling.
Therefore in any given tournament you may have 150 players but only 3 with chances of winning prizes. Even if you try and claim that those 3 are gambling 147 clearly are not and on the balance of probabilities the 147 - 3 decision towards not gambling is decisive.
07 Jul 06
Originally posted by Dragon FireSimply nonsense. You are as confused as Rahim.
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.
07 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI am not confused!
Simply nonsense. You are as confused as Rahim.
You are simply being illogical and resort to these meaningless 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.