I think that's one of the more precise arguments I've heard on this thread.
Is chess the Only 100% skill based game?
Sort:
.. 'Weiqi', {or 'Go'}, and, 'Shogi', are 100% 'skill'.. Though, may involve 'chance'; If neither player, is quite sure, where the 'move tree' will lead !? ..{also, see 'board games' {list}, on 'Google's, search-engine .. D-u-h ?!}
Way to Necro thread lol
@BoggleMeBrains, irrelevant to what? The result? It's not irrelevant to me if it can affect the result, it's something that should be taken into account.
@btickler, much the same thing. This is similar to saying the works of Shakespeare are no more than paper and ink,
madhacker wrote:
@BoggleMeBrains, irrelevant to what? The result? It's not irrelevant to me if it can affect the result, it's something that should be taken into account.
@btickler, much the same thing. This is similar to saying the works of Shakespeare are no more than paper and ink,
Actually, it's exactly the opposite of that. I said that a chess game is not equal to its physical components. Good luck with your future analogies.
"This is similar to saying the works of Shakespeare are no more than paper and ink,"
That's one of the best analogies I've seen in a long time. It's an "analogy for illustration". I also thought it was nicely poetic / aesthetic. As a teacher, I pay attention to whether something makes a point clearer or not. Sadly, some Phd's use / create bad analogies which reduce clarity. The above analogy does a good job of making the asserted point clear and simply, the reader is quickly clear on the point being made. I wish more people knew the art.
All analogies are for illustration. If you're incapable of understanding why an analogy that compares something explained as specifically not being tied to the physical to a work of art as being no more than the physical paper and ink it is written on is not a good analogy...then woe betide your students.
There are over 3 million teachers in the US, the majority of whom are just not all that good at what they do (no better or worse a situation than other professions really, though). That's why students always remember those few teachers that really know what they are doing. I wish more people had the skill.
Well, enjoy your abstract academic debates. I'm more interested in winning real games and therefore analyse in the way I think is most conducive to that end (possibly might explain the few hundred extra rating points).
league of legends 100% skill. dont blame your team
madhacker wrote:
Well, enjoy your abstract academic debates. I'm more interested in winning real games and therefore analyse in the way I think is most conducive to that end (possibly might explain the few hundred extra rating points).
By that line of reasoning, you should never have commented to begin with.
Computers are getting closer and closer to proving that chess is practically a draw with best play. In other words, it's getting harder and harder for a computer to beat another computer. Soon, perhaps in the next 5-10 years, correspondence chess will be completely dead.
The good news is that live chess will continue to thrive for the foreseeable future as long as we can avoid computer interference while the games are being played.
Btw, the fact that engines are getting so close to proving the game is a draw is further evidence that chess is not reliant on random statistical elements, known colloquially as "luck".