Dude poker has been proven to be a game of skill and chess has plenty of luck....I mean does your opponent like open or closed positions does he blunder piddly crap like that
Chess is about having the skills to capitalize on your luck. If your opponent makes a bad move, you are lucky, and if you can see it and punish it, you are good. You also needs the skills to avoid bad moves yourself, handing luck over to your opponent.
Dude poker has been proven to be a game of skill and chess has plenty of luck....I mean does your opponent like open or closed positions does he blunder piddly crap like that
Chess is about having the skills to capitalize on your luck. If your opponent makes a bad move, you are lucky, and if you can see it and punish it, you are good. You also needs the skills to avoid bad moves yourself, handing luck over to your opponent.
Complete nonsense.
Go, Checkers/Draughts, Shogi and ony other board game are all 100% skill based
You lost me at "any other board game."
Candyland?
I played in the Candyland world championship at Hastings 1996. Many people died.
Poker and chess and duplicate bridge are all games of skill. There is skill in the long run and some luck in the short run for all 3 games.
all card games are less than 100% skill as you are randomly dealing and drawing cards.
in duplicate bridge--everybody gets the same cards.
I don't know where to start - the premise that basketball, baseball, soccer/football don't require a vast amount of skill is wrong.
Additionally, if you've been to a large OTB tournament, you've surely seem players waiting for just the right time to slam their move down on the board, slam the clock, and call-out "Check!" to rattle their opponent emotionally. Is that one of the skills? Perhaps so: guile is a learned trick.
But additionally there is a degree of art as well as science: we look for patterns. we describe clever combinations are "beautiful."
Headaches, lighting and noise, even tournament pairings are not examples of luck in the game of chess. Those affect you and your mental state, not the discrete game of chess you are playing...and controlling your mental state while playing a game of chess is a matter of skill, not luck.
AdamovYuri wrote:
kanayoo wrote:
Well I think only Chess and Pool/Billiards.
Does anyone know of any other 100% skill-based games? Please list them here.
chess is not skill based..oftentimes it is decided by PURE luck and only luck...nothing else.
_______
Please provide an example of a chess position that was won/lost by "pure luck ... nothing else."
Luck would apply more where the skill levels are equal. Luck would apply less where the skill levels are different.
I must admit that many times I've put someone into check, not knowing it was mate.
The discovery of patterns in some positions is a matter of luck. Sometimes I see the pattern, sometimes - for the same position - I might not. I know because often I see it at the last second, for seemingly no reason at all. Sometimes I'm the victor, sometimes I'm the loser.
A major point: We don't want the other person to know what we're planning. If it's all skill, why not?
Can't they see the same position we see? Yes, but noticing the potential moves leading to mate (or the capture of an extra pawn) is often dependant on skill *and* luck. True, if I had greater skill, luck would not be needed. If I had less skill, for that same position, luck would not help.
But many positions need either skill or less skill plus more luck in noticing the pattern.
Otherwise, why put ??? marks on a bad move? Didnt the GrandMaster see it? Doesn't everybody see the same board? Well, we see the board, but the patterns to victory don't come to us.
So, two players on the same level (if that's not too much over-simplification of abilities)
two players on the same level
think computers:
Two exact same computers with the exact same program can only be decided by luck, period.
Two exact same computers with exactly the same program can not possibly be decided by anything *but* luck alone. The computers, being machines, don't care one way or the other. They're fancy calculators plus the game of chess. Chess = 100% luck in identical computer games. There's no other factor, it's not the electricity, it's not the atmosphere, it's not the dog walking through the room, it's decided by the luck inherent in the game of chess.
Two computers adding the same string of numbers would end in a tie, every time.
Two computers playing a dice game would be randomly selected, the dice being the luck factor.
Take away the dice and put in the game of chess, you have chess being the luck factor.
If the skill levels are equal, then the results are luck.
AdamovYuri wrote:
kanayoo wrote:
Well I think only Chess and Pool/Billiards.
Does anyone know of any other 100% skill-based games? Please list them here.
chess is not skill based..oftentimes it is decided by PURE luck and only luck...nothing else.
_______
Please provide an example of a chess position that was won/lost by "pure luck ... nothing else."
Luck would apply more where the skill levels are equal. Luck would apply less where the skill levels are different.
I must admit that many times I've put someone into check, not knowing it was mate.
The discovery of patterns in some positions is a matter of luck. Sometimes I see the pattern, sometimes - for the same position - I might not. I know because often I see it at the last second, for seemingly no reason at all. Sometimes I'm the victor, sometimes I'm the loser.
A major point: We don't want the other person to know what we're planning. If it's all skill, why not?
Can't they see the same position we see? Yes, but noticing the potential moves leading to mate (or the capture of an extra pawn) is often dependant on skill *and* luck. True, if I had greater skill, luck would not be needed. If I had less skill, for that same position, luck would not help.
But many positions need either skill or less skill plus more luck in noticing the pattern.
Otherwise, why put ??? marks on a bad move? Didnt the GrandMaster see it? Doesn't everybody see the same board? Well, we see the board, but the patterns to victory don't come to us.
So, two players on the same level (if that's not too much over-simplification of abilities)
two players on the same level
think computers:
Two exact same computers with the exact same program can only be decided by luck, period.
Two exact same computers with exactly the same program can not possibly be decided by anything *but* luck alone. The computers, being machines, don't care one way or the other. They're fancy calculators plus the game of chess. Chess = 100% luck in identical computer games. There's no other factor, it's not the electricity, it's not the atmosphere, it's not the dog walking through the room, it's decided by the luck inherent in the game of chess.
Two computers adding the same string of numbers would end in a tie, every time.
Two computers playing a dice game would be randomly selected, the dice being the luck factor.
Take away the dice and put in the game of chess, you have chess being the luck factor.
If the skill levels are equal, then the results are luck.
Your understanding of computers and chess engines is quaint and charming 
. Two computers adding the same string of numbers will not end in a tie every time. It fact they will never end in an absolute tie, if the measurement method is accurate enough. Even if came down to brownian motion and the spin of individual electrons...there would be a difference. The same computer would not even tie itself, never mind 2 separate computers. Maybe you need to read up on multi-threaded OSes, just for starters. Two computers are never in the same exact state. Computers are not fancy calculators. That's a pre-1980s point of view. It's 2017. A calculator would be like a 100yd dash sprinter with his feet on the blocks waiting for the starting gun. A computer would be more like a national decathlon team, all competing in events in parallel starting and finishing at staggered timing intervals...if you ask the team to drop everything right where they are and run over to do a single task, they will not perform it even close to the say way or in the same amount of time each time, nor will all team members even be able to join in...a team member that has started a pole vault, for example, will have to finish out the vault before running elsewhere to do anything. This is true even if you give the engine 100% of "available CPU".
To address a few other points:
- The notation ?! and ?? in no way, shape, or form denote luck. They denote a dubious decision on the part of a player that is produced by a lack of proper application of skill.
- When you miss a pattern on one occasion that you caught on previous occasions, that has nothing to do with luck. That is a lack of skill on your part. Recognizing patterns is one skill. Consistently applying that skill in all situations and not dropping the ball is another skill. Not luck.
- If you check someone and it turns out to be mate but you are too unskilled to realize you have mated...that is not luck, either. Not in any way.
You are correct that there is luck in chess...but it is only who moves first.
Who you play against or whether they cheat is not luck. It's your decision who you play against. Note that a tournament is not a game of chess, it's a competitive construct/structure completely outside the game. You can say there is luck in a tournament...not in the rules of chess.
A lot of people here are making the mistake of defining luck as anything you cannot control personally. Not correct. Luck is "things that happen to a person because of chance". Things that other people decide/influence are not chance. Things that are based on another person's skills or lack thereof are not chance. A bad arbiter is not chance, it the fault of the arbiter and a lack of skill on their part. A person using an engine is not chance, it is a choice made by another person. An opponent blundering is not chance, it is a lack of skill on their part.
You can challenge a bad arbiter (skill). You can catch someone cheating (skill). You can't do anything about drawing black for your chess game but play it out (luck).
NO, I played other 100% skill based games.
Only one of those, choice of color, is actually luck. Arguably external factors like if a lighting fixture falls on your head, but since those don't count as part of the game for any game, why should they count for chess? A freak solar flare could kill us all tomorrow...that's not a sign of luck in the game in the game of chess.
agree. was about to write the same thing.
You're both using a strict, narrow definition of 'luck'. I'm using a practical definition.
Non-exhaustive list of luck in chess:
> Who you are drawn to play, and with which colour
Who you are drawn to play against and which colour is not part of a game of chess. You might have bad luck to get more blacks than whites in a tournament, but your bad luck happened before the game started.
From the point of view of a tournament player who's actually trying to win real games in real life, it's a bit meaningless to rip the game out of the context in which it happens. I'm in 'chess mode' for the whole duration of the tournament (a kind of escapism I guess, unless you're a pro)
Only one of those, choice of color, is actually luck. Arguably external factors like if a lighting fixture falls on your head, but since those don't count as part of the game for any game, why should they count for chess? A freak solar flare could kill us all tomorrow...that's not a sign of luck in the game in the game of chess.
agree. was about to write the same thing.
You're both using a strict, narrow definition of 'luck'. I'm using a practical definition.
If by practical, you mean imprecise, then yes. Also, this discussion is about luck in the game of chess, not luck in competitive boardgame tournaments. Chess as a game is a logical construct, nothing more than a set of legal moves that produce one of 3 outcomes. There don't have to be sentient players (engines play each other), there doesn't have to be a physical board or pieces (blindfold specialists can play 15-30 games of chess in their heads), there doesn't have to be a clock, etc.
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".
Marbles.