That wonderful moment when your rivals left you 15 min. waiting... (in unrated, no less)... because they are losing.
Yeah, some people take this too seriously.
Why is chess taken so seriously?
Sort:
Nov 17, 2015
0
#43
It's very lazy to claim it is taken "so seriously" yet provide no references for where/how/when it is taken "so seriously"!
Nov 17, 2015
0
#44
mdinnerspace wrote:
@Thriller... you seem very upset about this.I only suggest that it may not be luck at all, if all the factors were understood and measured properly, that any outcome can be known before any given result. Causes and effects. Just a different definition of Luck than yours. This is not the forum to discuss physics and quantum theories.
I'll make 1 example. The roulette ball lands on 28. The fellow with his chips on 28 feels very lucky to have won. But if all the factors were known prior to the roll of the ball, and all factors of gravity, ball speed and table rotation could be measured and properly analysed, then there was no other alternative but for that ball to land on 28. No luck involved.
Problem is, the answer to your "if" is that no, it's not!
You have no idea what the ball speed would be. Even the dealer would have no idea. The wheel speed slows down, unless the dealer chooses to accelerate it, and the ball speed is not exactly the same every time. It might make 11.37 revs on one roll, and 11.83 revs on the next roll, before landing in a number, and the angle it comes in, whether they choose to use the small or large ball, etc, plays a factor, and you can't tell me that you have the ability to know what the dealer is thinking, consciously, like I'm going to spin it a little slower this time, or sub-consciously, like I must spin the ball hard, but sub-conciously, while not intended, I spun it a tad harder than last time.
So yes, Luck is a factor, even if you think you know everything based on pattern of the previous 100 numbers spun on the roulette wheel.
Someone gets into a fender bender. The driver calls it an accident. Nonsense..it could have been avoided if the right observations were made and appropriate actions taken. Some call it an accident, some call things lucky or unlucky. I view our world from a different perspective and use other terminology to describe the same thing. Don't be so Serious!
Nov 17, 2015
0
#46
mdinnerspace wrote:
NM ozzie.. if you want to take it seriously. .. it is called table tennis. The local players down the block in a garage play ping pong.
I used to think this way too, but a co-worker of mine, who is as good at ping pong as I am at chess calls it ping pong. So if it's all the same to you, I'll continue with that.
mdinnerspace wrote:
Someone gets into a fender bender. The driver calls it an accident. Nonsense..it could have been avoided if the right observations were made and appropriate actions taken. Some call it an accident, some call things lucky or unlucky. I view our world from a different perspective and use other terminology to describe the same thing. Don't be so Serious!
But mdinnerspace, it could be argued that your terminology is wrong for the simple reason that the majority of people don't use it the way you do. That's the annoying thing about language... the majority seems to rule, or sometimes the academics or noble class... or sometimes whoever's shouting loudest. It doesn't belong to grammarians or to anyone.
What I mean is that other people might agree with all your statements such as "could have been avoided if the right observations were made" etc., and yet call it an "accident", because they have a wider meaning of the term than you do. Sorry but your taking of some word in a very strict or narrow sense isn't as a result of some further insight or scientific mind etc. that you have.
NM ozzie... are you aware table tennis and chess use the exact same system for ratings? I won a national championship in both, same year, class B. The table tennis trophy was far harder, having to best 400+ players. I also took the senior title, although less players, it was more challanging.
My chess rating and table tennis rating is identical. The same rating system is used. For everyone's info.. heaven was exposed on another thread for the troll he is. Read his profile and racist comments made on various posts.
I play for the fun of "sport". I used to be quite a bit more serious in that I practiced or studied more hours. I realized I would never become a master unless I devoted 8 hrs a day, 7 days a week for a few years. That applies to table tennis, 2200 being top 1%. Too what end? It's a pastime that I enjoy. To get back on topic... taking chess too seriously, unless it is your chosen profession, only tells me you are playing for the wrong reasons.
Nov 18, 2015
0
#52
mdinnerspace wrote:
NM ozzie... are you aware table tennis and chess use the exact same system for ratings? I won a national championship in both, same year, class B. The table tennis trophy was far harder, having to best 400+ players. I also took the senior title, although less players, it was more challanging.
I am aware, and my rating and my co-worker's rating are both around 2250; his for ping pong, and mine for chess.
I have played a few vs 2250 matches in Table Tennis. Most of the time I get crushed, but being an excellent chopper many like to practice looping my returns. Hey... the world champion wheel chair player 2200+ played at our club! Mike Dempsey, this was early 2000's.
I'm in china. People play chinese chess in the street. It's far less serious than intn'l chess. People will shout, crowds will form- it's far more exciting and lively.
And it's practically the same game. But in China, people realize that it's just a game. In the west, people think its some huge intellectual enterprise that determines your intellegence.
Too bad.
Very true, but I do think alot of it is from the younger generation. Misguided about a what is a hobby. Although good progress is being made in many schools 1-12.
Nov 19, 2015
0
#56
Wait - being better at chess than 99% of you doesn't mean I'm smarter than 99% of you??
Nov 19, 2015
0
#57
Chess players know it's a very specific skill.
Every time I've seen it confused for intelligence, it's a non-player doing it.
The most annoying part of this ignorance to me is they don't realize chess can be studied and the skill built up the way it can be for many other things in life. I don't think they'd describe it this way, but by thinking games are won by raw creative intelligence they're greatly underestimating the game.
Fischer always objected to being called a chess genius, he didn't like that label at all.
His point was that he was a genius period, no need for putting "chess" on it.
Wasn't it Silman who said Anybody can become a chess master? Study 8 hours a day and in ten years you too can be a master. Anybody might be stretching a bit , but basically I think it's true. Got to be one serious individual to go to that length. For most master's it just comes naturally, having excellent spatial and pattern recognition.
@Thriller... you seem very upset about this.I only suggest that it may not be luck at all, if all the factors were understood and measured properly, that any outcome can be known before any given result. Causes and effects. Just a different definition of Luck than yours. This is not the forum to discuss physics and quantum theories.
I'll make 1 example. The roulette ball lands on 28. The fellow with his chips on 28 feels very lucky to have won. But if all the factors were known prior to the roll of the ball, and all factors of gravity, ball speed and table rotation could be measured and properly analysed, then there was no other alternative but for that ball to land on 28. No luck involved.