Where can i play chess for money
On chess.com...
... but anyone who asks this wont be winning money... lol.
Lol really i played yesterday on [removed].com and i won upto $200
Sure you did. You won "up to" $200 dollars, you say? Lol.
Wow, maybe I should go there...I mean it seems really legit, how could a 2 day old account be lying about this to shill for a website?
I agree. The less we respond to trolls, the less they will dominate the forums.
Just so you and I have an understanding, I will in no way hold it against you that he is on your side with the "chess is a sport" thing. That would not be very nice of me. He seems to be, how do I say this politely, in a league of his own. A very special league it seems.
Most of the people who call chess a sport do so for the wrong reasons. They are not on my side.
This is true, because you only call chess a sport to be politically correct. Because you coach and host events. But the truth is you don't treat chess like a sport, and don't understand what makes something a sport or sporting.
Because take this very thread topic for example. Any game that has elements of luck in it, is not a sport. Yet you are here debating that chess is full of luck. Even though your motive is really to disparage the lower rated players to satisfy your ego maniacal, conceited, and twisted superiority complex, you are still disqualifying chess from being a sport by making such comments.
"any game that has elements of luck in it, is not a sport." You know, like baseball, football, golf, hockey, basketball, or basically any sport. According to this, all sports are not sports. But somehow, chess is.
I don't think I've ever come across anyone, ever, so intentionally wrong. About so many different things.
Yes there is. Sometimes certain positions are saved by some lucky nuance in the position. But it is not good to rely on being lucky in chess.. for an example of luck I once faced the Scandinavian defence in bullet and my opponent decided to place his bishop on g4. Clearly a blunder Wich I couldn't take advantage of because I automatically premoved Nc3 by mistake since I accidentally touched the square I intended to put my knight on. Pure luck. Also I had a position where I decided to sacrifice my last piece to eliminate all my opponents pawns leaving him with a knight and a bishop with about 1 minute 40 seconds on the clock and that's quite difficult to win in such a short time espeacially if you make unexpected movements with your king.. he got me into the wrong corner and luckily he didn't have a clue that he needed to push me to the corner of the same colour that his bishop moves on. I had less time than him but ended up flagging him because I could premove every move
I actually wrote a rap song how I feel they should not be part of baseball and we should just have lazers and cameras deciding plays lol.
Just when I thought we couldn't be more opposite, I learn about this haha. Perhaps even more blasphemous than your disdain for stats!
It's perfectly obvious, Coolout, that I just showed you up as completely wrong. You had no answer to my comment and so you intentionally ignored it. That means I just won our argument.
Luck can apply to human actions. I just proved it. You couldn't answer. You know my arguments are far too strong for you and so you try to ignore them.
Yes, but that all depends on which definition of "wrong" you are using. I'm sure he will feel quite strongly, my friend, that the definition you are using doesn't apply in any scenario that involves him. Likely to be a bit of dishonesty and misunderstanding (on your part of course) thrown in just for good measure.
Wow 100 pages and still going! Does anyone care to summarize what we're actually arguing about ?
I'd argue that there's no such thing as pure luck in chess. You don't forsee everything with the part of your brain responsible for deductive reasoning, but your brain has processed everything you see to a lesser extent.
Wow 100 pages and still going! Does anyone care to summarize what we're actually arguing about ?
Mostly its about who is smarter.
Wow 100 pages and still going! Does anyone care to summarize what we're actually arguing about ?
Mostly its about who is smarter.
No difference from most of the general forums alright.
It's perfectly obvious, Coolout, that I just showed you up as completely wrong. You had no answer to my comment and so you intentionally ignored it. That means I just won our argument.
Luck can apply to human actions. I just proved it. You couldn't answer. You know my arguments are far too strong for you and so you try to ignore them.
there is absolutely no luck in chess, even though luck can be applied to life. the only luck that there is in chess is getting matched up with an opponent, but when you play the actual game it comes down to skill
It's perfectly obvious, Coolout, that I just showed you up as completely wrong. You had no answer to my comment and so you intentionally ignored it. That means I just won our argument.
Luck can apply to human actions. I just proved it. You couldn't answer. You know my arguments are far too strong for you and so you try to ignore them.
there is absolutely no luck in chess, even though luck can be applied to life. the only luck that there is in chess is getting matched up with an opponent, but when you play the actual game it comes down to skill
If you're going to participate in a so far 100 page debate on the topic your contribution needs to be a little deeper than that if you wanna bring something new to the table.
It's perfectly obvious, Coolout, that I just showed you up as completely wrong. You had no answer to my comment and so you intentionally ignored it. That means I just won our argument.
Luck can apply to human actions. I just proved it. You couldn't answer. You know my arguments are far too strong for you and so you try to ignore them.
there is absolutely no luck in chess, even though luck can be applied to life. the only luck that there is in chess is getting matched up with an opponent, but when you play the actual game it comes down to skill
If you're going to participate in a so far 100 page debate on the topic your contribution needs to be a little deeper than that if you wanna bring something new to the table.
I wouldn't expect him to read through this whole thread at this point. Especially with all the troll spam. But what the guy is doing is reiterating a very simple and obvious point, casting his voice in affirmation. Something that you seem to be unable to refute and which is the very topic of this thread.
You don't need to read the whole topic to atleast give some reasoning for your argument.
The point has been refuted by myself many times, it's just a matter of making it so obvious through practical examples so that even you wouldn't be able to escape it with gibberish lol. I'm not sure theres anything to add to the topic anymore but in case something new comes up I'll probably come back to this topic.
It's perfectly obvious, Coolout, that I just showed you up as completely wrong. You had no answer to my comment and so you intentionally ignored it. That means I just won our argument.
Luck can apply to human actions. I just proved it. You couldn't answer. You know my arguments are far too strong for you and so you try to ignore them.
there is absolutely no luck in chess, even though luck can be applied to life. the only luck that there is in chess is getting matched up with an opponent, but when you play the actual game it comes down to skill
Could you elaborate a little bit? How, specifically, could luck apply to life but not chess? Nevermind the quote "chess is life" which would mean luck in life would obviously also apply to chess. I'm just wondering how the question Optimissed asked might be answered.
It seems to me ignoring the question, then making a claim to the opposite, doesn't really prove anything. It's almost as if the best one could hope for is if the question doesn't get answered, it will go away, and nobody will notice.
So far the generally agreed upon definitions of luck allow for luck in chess. Or as someone else said, if it doesn't, then language is missing a word to describe what it is.
But for chess.
I call it only luck for my oponent when i was mutch better in postion and time and lose because of one misstake. Because my oponent did not earn it.
He did earn it. Look at how Carissa Yip got flagged in half her games today against Alina Kaslinskaya. Thats because she does not have the experience and skills needed for blitz, even though she is a very dominant classical players. Time management and fast tactical play is part of the game and these are things that must be exercised and maintained to keep at a high level. The fact is you lost and your opponent played more skillfully whether you were in a winning position or not. This is a competitive sport, not a math problem.
https://soundcloud.com/cooloutac/hustle-that-base?utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing Here is my song the references umpires in baseball. 18 and over please.
Thats why i wrote position and time. I do know that a time advantage is neutralised by time disadvantage.
OK are you doing this on purpose?
I was saying when I had the bettter postion and time all the moves and i was only making one misstake in the end. So my oponent was slower than me not faster. Understand?
If you made a mistake it was you that made the mistake. You lost because of your own fault and from no other force. You opponent also made his moves on his own. Your opponent did not get lucky.
With your defnition luck would not exist in the enire reality since it is always our own decision
There have been many good reasons why at least some luck exists in chess, but this is one of the better ones. Some people claim luck doesn't exist in chess because it doesn't exist at all, which is the only way they could make the claim in the first place.
So if it doesn't exist at all, my question to those people is why is there a word for it and what other word should we use for things like winning the lottery, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc.
Also, I'm still curious what the response might be to the question Optimissed had. For someone who looks for any reason to respond to anything, (even when he shouldn't) it's certainly odd that the resident luck denier remains silent on this.
So is it good luck or bad luck that you are not answering the question Optimissed had? I know there is a chance you might answer it, but when it comes down to whether or not the answer might be coherent, wouldn't you agree that's a matter of luck?
....says the person who thinks if there is an element of luck to it, it can't be a sport.
That's the problem with definitions. Sometimes they are really important, sometimes they are meaningless. It sorta depends on what your personal feeling are, at the moment.
I think I would rather let you speak for yourself. If you believe something cannot be a sport if an element of luck is involved, really nothing more can be said. I don't see any reason to "counter" that.
If you believe that there is no luck in sports then it's best that you remain the sole inhabitant of the world you live in.
I lost a game yesterday. My opponent dominated the game. Today, luckily, I got back the rating points he took.