By definition: a rating system difference of 200 points is wrong 25 percent of the time.
Actually it's wrong 100% of the time. The higher rated player has an expectation of .75 which never happens in a single game. Which is about the same as saying a broken watch is more accurate than a watch that loses a 1/365 of a second each day. The broken watch is correct twice a day, while the other watch is correct once every 8,640 years.
Well that's kind of silly -- by that logic the 50:50 odds of a coin flip are also wrong 100% of the time, and taken over a dataset that consists of a single case any probability that isn't 100%/0% is wrong 100% of the time. That's really not how probabilities are meant to be applied.
Well that's kind of silly -- by that logic the 50:50 odds of a coin flip are also wrong 100% of the time, and taken over a dataset that consists of a single case any probability that isn't 100%/0% is wrong 100% of the time. That's really not how probabilities are meant to be applied.
Wrong. If players have the same rating they have an expectation of .5 which is exactly what they get when they draw. There are many other possibilities where the expected result can equal the actual result.
Yes, there are other possibilities where the misapplication of probabilities can yield seemingly sensible results.
The game itself is a game of complete information so there is no luck in the sense of randomness.
But there's plenty of luck involved in the game.
Who you are pared with at a tournament is about luck. Which opening they choose to play involves luck. If you happened to recently study the endgame you need to know in order to win is about luck, and so on.
So luck doesn't play into the game, but it does play into the experience of the game.
There is considerable skill in poker. Texas Hold em while not a game of complete information, there is considerable information available to make decisions. There is both deep strategy and very complicated tactical thinking that go into playing Texas Hold em. Tournament poker has a lot of luck since as the blinds and antes raise it comes down to shove and pray at the end of tournament. A deep stacked cash game is very much a game of skill.
There is considerable skill in poker. Texas Hold em while not a game of complete information, there is considerable information available to make decisions. There is both deep strategy and very complicated tactical thinking that go into playing Texas Hold em. Tournament poker has a lot of luck since as the blinds and antes raise it comes down to shove and pray at the end of tournament. A deep stacked cash game is very much a game of skill.
That is sort of true.
If one plays according to those strategies for an infinite number of hands, then one will win according to the odds.
But given a finite number of hands, there's still considerable luck involved.
In poker over a long enough time (a large number but way short of infinite) the amount of money you make approaches very closely the number of mistakes your opponents made less the number of mistakes you made.) You can put a value on each mistake. This more than sort of true, you can literally take it to the bank.
There's luck in Chess if you play me. I play the opening randomly.
By definition: a rating system difference of 200 points is wrong 25 percent of the time.
Actually it's wrong 100% of the time. The higher rated player has an expectation of .75 which never happens in a single game. Which is about the same as saying a broken watch is more accurate than a watch that loses a 1/365 of a second each day. The broken watch is correct twice a day, while the other watch is correct once every 8,640 years.
Yikes.
More fun with math skills.
I would also argue that the game of chess doesn't exist without humans to recognize it as a game of chess. Thus, this 'pure' chess that supposedly exists independent of the humans who play it is a fallacy. As humans are subject to a seemingly infinite number of 'outside circumstances' that affect their mental state at the moment of play, chess seems almost entirely a game of luck.
Edit add: certainly it seems to function much as a non-linear system with a great deal of chaos within a finite number of choices. Perhaps the best great chess players can hope for is to minimize the chaos within the game.
Craps is basically all luck.I can't think of too many games that are so luck oriented.
Backgammon has more skill required still, but the dice causes there to be enough luck involved, it has as much chance at changing the outcome of a game, as skill or lack there of, ever does.
Chess on the other hand, is almost completely skill oriented. You can't just push random pieces, while your opponent has a strategy and practically think you have a chance to win. You will lose everytime.
Ok,ok ... I'll give the odds the chance that you might pick enough best/really good moves, against a competent opponent, to actually have a realistic chance to win. You can waste your life trying to prove me wrong and I might actually win the lottery if I start playing now before I die.
Hence, chess isn't a game of luck, though luck, whether good or bad, can have it's effect over the outcome, but much less often than a game like Backgammon. The more skilled player is almost always going to win.