Go is probably a deeper and more profound game than Chess -- at least that was the view of Emanuel Lasker.
Is chess the Only 100% skill based game?
Sort:
Aldan wrote:
Go is probably a deeper and more profound game than Chess -- at least that was the view of Emanuel Lasker.
Yeah there's no computer program for Go that plays much above beginner level it's too hard compared to chess.
Mar 7, 2016
0
#164
only chess which remains unsolved yet! i will solve it before my fall 
Hey
Mar 7, 2016
0
#166
Aldan wrote:
I'm surprised that none have mentioned two other games which in which luck plays no part: 1: the asian game of Go which has millions of devotees in Japan, Korea, and China and which is now played throughout the world; and 2: Japanese Chess.
Go was mentioned in the second post of this long, boring thread.
Mar 7, 2016
0
#167
Dodger111 wrote:
Aldan wrote:
...
Yeah there's no computer program for Go that plays much above beginner level it's too hard compared to chess.
As was pointed out many pages ago, there is now a Go engine that can beat masters. It won't be long before it beats the best humans in the world.
Mar 7, 2016
0
#169
As skillful as you have to be to play chess well I don't think I would classify chess as a 100% skill based game. If we assume a perfectly played chess game ends in a draw then one of the players must make a (however minor) mistake for the other to come out victorious. So maybe 99.9% but I don't think we can call it 100%. Granted I'm a patzer so maybe I'm just jealous that others are much better than me lol. On the same note I'm not sure we can call anything a 100% skill based game.
Just because Go is more theoretically complex doesn't make it a harder game than chess. Neither game is solved and until they are both solved theoretical complexity only possibly indicates difficulty of learning basic rules and the difficulty computers have competing with humans. A fair game is only as difficult as its competition.
Mar 7, 2016
0
#171
VeetheEspeon wrote:
As skillful as you have to be to play chess well I don't think I would classify chess as a 100% skill based game. If we assume a perfectly played chess game ends in a draw then one of the players must make a (however minor) mistake for the other to come out victorious. So maybe 99.9% but I don't think we can call it 100%. Granted I'm a patzer so maybe I'm just jealous that others are much better than me lol. On the same note I'm not sure we can call anything a 100% skill based game.
The whole premise of a skill based game is that is possible to increase your skills and not make mistakes. What skills, or lack thereof, that cause mistakes may be different for each person but can be improved.
To say some game isn't 100% skill-based you would have to define what the part that isn't actually is. There isn't a true element of chance in chess, though people can speak of being lucky it usually comes down to the fact that one player is less skilled than another, has better stamina, better concentration, etc.
I agree, VeetheEspeon, and Martin_Stahl; I don't think anything is 100% skill based as long as humans are involved. There is always the chance for oversight/blunder, which can be capitalized on. But then you could say that there is the skill of knowing how to punish that oversight/blunder!
An example is seen at the 2015 Baku cup:
http://www.bakuworldcup2015.com/news/8/87
itsdavidtho wrote:
Just because Go is more theoretically complex doesn't make it a harder game than chess. Neither game is solved and until they are both solved theoretical complexity only possibly indicates difficulty of learning basic rules and the difficulty computers have competing with humans. A fair game is only as difficult as its competition.
The argument goes that there are more "levels" in go than in chess, and this would suggest more complexity.
A level is, let's say, 200 elo point. So A is a beginner and he would be beaten by B, B would be beaten by C, etc. etc. and D is a master.
Apparently there are more of these in go.
The important thing is not how complex or difficult it is. What that matters is which game is more creative, interesting, and exciting. Here chess absolutely wipes the floor with go, there's no comparison. Think of a 2000 level tactic, compare it with putting a stone where you know in 20 turns there will be another stone.
Define "luck" in this case. Would I be lucky because I played against a GM and then won because the GM had a heart attack?
Mar 7, 2016
0
#175
Interesting timing:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35746909
The World Champion Go player will face the engine AlphaGo in a five game match this week!
Prologue1 wrote:
Define "luck" in this case. Would I be lucky because I played against a GM and then won because the GM had a heart attack?
From distionaries:
Luck - events that are beyond control and seem subject to chance.
Luck is success that comes to you by accident rather than by your own efforts.
Luck - an unknown and unpredictable phenomenon that leads to a favorable outcome.
We can't predict opponent's mistakes and we have very little control over them. When they happen it's luck.
I wonder. What if they were both lucky? Who wins? Is it a draw?
SaintGermain32105 wrote:
I wonder. What if they were both lucky? Who wins? Is it a draw?
It depends. You can be lucky at one moment of the game and unlucky at another. "The winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake." (Savielly Tartakower)
kanayoo wrote:
Well I think only Chess and Pool/Billiards.
Does anyone know of any other 100% skill-based games? Please list them here.
Yes, NLHE is 100% skill-based game
I'm surprised that none have mentioned two other games which in which luck plays no part: 1: the asian game of Go which has millions of devotees in Japan, Korea, and China and which is now played throughout the world; and 2: Japanese Chess.