Also illegal where?
Feature : Play for money
Sort:
LisaV wrote:
Gambling on a Mormon-owned website. rofl
Erik, comp me a Martini with a twist. Thanks. ;)
I like them M-words so much, 
blake78613 wrote:
NimzoRoy wrote:
blake78613 wrote:
AlCzervik wrote:
Hmmm, not one comment yet about it being illegal...
Because it is not illegal. Chess is considered a game of skill. Many tournaments have entry fees and Prizes, this is legal because games of skill are not considered gambling.
How do you know it's not illegal ONLINE?
'
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006§ 5362. Definitions ''
In this subchapter:
''(1) BET OR WAGER.—The term 'bet or wager'—
''(A) means the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome;
''(B) includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is predominantly subject to chance); '
'(C) includes any scheme of a type described in section 3702 of title 28;
''(D) includes any instructions or information pertaining to the establishment or movement of funds by the bettor or customer in, to, or from an account with the business of betting or wagering; and
''(E) does not include—
''(i) any activity governed by the securities laws (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the purchase or sale of securities (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(10) of that Act);
''(ii) any transaction conducted on or subject to the rules of a registered entity or exempt board of trade under the Commodity Exchange Act;
''(iii) any over-the-counter derivative instrument;
''(iv) any other transaction that— ''(I) is excluded or exempt from regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act; or ''(II) is exempt from State gaming or bucket shop laws under section 12(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act or section 28(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
''(v) any contract of indemnity or guarantee;
''(vi) any contract for insurance; '
'(vii) any deposit or other transaction with an insured depository institution; '
'(viii) participation in any game or contest in which participants do not stake or risk anything of value other than—
''(I) personal efforts of the participants in playing the game or contest or obtaining access to the Internet; or '
'(II) points or credits that the sponsor of the game or contest provides to participants free of charge and that can be used or redeemed only for participation in games or contests offered by the sponsor; or
''(ix) participation in any fantasy or simulation sports game or educational game or contest in which (if the game or contest involves a team or teams) no fantasy or simulation sports team is based on the current membership of an actual team that is a member of an amateur or professional sports organization (as those terms are defined in section 3701 of title 28) and that meets the following conditions:
''(I) All prizes and awards offered to winning participants are established and made known to the participants in advance of the game or contest and their value is not determined by the number of participants or the amount of any fees paid by those participants.
''(II) All winning outcomes reflect the relative knowledge and skill of the participants and are determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of the performance of individuals (athletes in the case of sports events) in multiple real world sporting or other events.
''(III) No winning outcome is based— ''(aa) on the score, point-spread, or any performance or performances of any single real-world team or any combination of such teams; or ''(bb) solely on any single performance of an individual athlete in any single real-world sporting or other event.
I have no clue why everyone is referring it as gambling. I can clearly see through it as a clean and legal way of playing for money. and it is not gambling at all. Thanking blake78613 for taking the efforts to dig down to the actual law. (I guess the US law is relevent as chess.com is registered in the US). It all becomes clear if you just term the amount as entry fee for the tournament. The same amount minus the game hosting service fee is given to the winner.
Game subject to chance sums up quite a few of my games.
There are lots of skill games, like Poker or Backgammon that are real money games, in fact, they cant work properly without a stake.
Chess is not such a game.
This thread has SO many flaws with it. Firstly, people would sandbag, so when and opponent thinks they will be getting easy money they then lose. Secondly it is illegal. Thirdly, it would in effect be encouraging use of engines during play (to the OP - your comment about both sides being able to use engines is again ridiculous, because almost everybody here enjoys playing using their own brain). Also, it would completely trash the site, there would be security issues, and most people would probably hate it if it was enforced. Just enjoy chess.com without the option of playing for money, and if you want to gamble then im sure you can do that over the board.
rooperi wrote:
There are lots of skill games, like Poker or Backgammon that are real money games, in fact, they cant work properly without a stake.
Chess is not such a game.
Backgammon can and is played without stakes and it works fine. Tournament poker can and is played without stakes. If you can find serious players you can play a ring type poker game without stakes, but admittedly it just takes one person to screw it up.
UltraLaser wrote:
This thread has SO many flaws with it. Firstly, people would sandbag, so when and opponent thinks they will be getting easy money they then lose. Secondly it is illegal. Thirdly, it would in effect be encouraging use of engines during play (to the OP - your comment about both sides being able to use engines is again ridiculous, because almost everybody here enjoys playing using their own brain). Also, it would completely trash the site, there would be security issues, and most people would probably hate it if it was enforced. Just enjoy chess.com without the option of playing for money, and if you want to gamble then im sure you can do that over the board.
"Firstly, people would sandbag, so when and opponent thinks they will be getting easy money they then lose."
>>When only two players are involved and are playing for money(which they paid as the entry fee), why would they sandbag?. Their own money is at stake. Infact they will play their best to win.
"Secondly it is illegal".
>> Explain how? Pls quote the law if necessary. blake78613 has already done that above. You may refer to it.
Thirdly, it would in effect be encouraging use of engines during play (to the OP - your comment about both sides being able to use engines is again ridiculous, because almost everybody here enjoys playing using their own brain).
>> Agree. It MAY. But this is possible currently as well. Isnt it? And again I mention the amount to be meagre.. something which you can vile away at McDonalds.
Also, it would completely trash the site, there would be security issues, and most people would probably hate it if it was enforced. Just enjoy chess.com without the option of playing for money, and if you want to gamble then im sure you can do that over the board.
>>> I never said to enforce it for everyone. Just like when you create a challenge, you get the option of timed or untimed game, an additional option of money/ no money can be added.
knamit01 wrote:
UltraLaser wrote:
This thread has SO many flaws with it. Firstly, people would sandbag, so when and opponent thinks they will be getting easy money they then lose. Secondly it is illegal. Thirdly, it would in effect be encouraging use of engines during play (to the OP - your comment about both sides being able to use engines is again ridiculous, because almost everybody here enjoys playing using their own brain). Also, it would completely trash the site, there would be security issues, and most people would probably hate it if it was enforced. Just enjoy chess.com without the option of playing for money, and if you want to gamble then im sure you can do that over the board.
"Firstly, people would sandbag, so when and opponent thinks they will be getting easy money they then lose."
>>When only two players are involved and are playing for money(which they paid as the entry fee), why would they sandbag?. Their own money is at stake. Infact they will play their best to win.
"Secondly it is illegal".
>> Explain how? Pls quote the law if necessary. blake78613 has already done that above. You may refer to it.
Thirdly, it would in effect be encouraging use of engines during play (to the OP - your comment about both sides being able to use engines is again ridiculous, because almost everybody here enjoys playing using their own brain).
>> Agree. It MAY. But this is possible currently as well. Isnt it? And again I mention the amount to be meagre.. something which you can vile away at McDonalds.
Also, it would completely trash the site, there would be security issues, and most people would probably hate it if it was enforced. Just enjoy chess.com without the option of playing for money, and if you want to gamble then im sure you can do that over the board.
>>> I never said to enforce it for everyone. Just like when you create a challenge, you get the option of timed or untimed game, an additional option of money/ no money can be added.
Wow, I am sorry to hear you don't even know or understand what sandbagging is - i mean deliberately losing in games NOT for money, so it looks like they are a bad player and people think they can win money off them. If you want an option a rating for money games, then fine. But it would still be possible in games for less money and more money etc. Also note i said ***encouraging*** use of engines. BTW i don't need to explain why it is illegal, as someone who you said posted has already proven. Try reading comments before arguing with them, because who knows, maybe they will explain why there are flaws with your argument. Thank you.
I only want to address one point. When two parties wager stakes on *their own skill* and not a game of complete chance, it is *not illegal*. It's when you wager on the skill of others or when the wager is not based on the skill of the participants. I'll show the relevant line in the law:
§ 5362. Definitions ''
In this subchapter:
''(1) BET OR WAGER.—The term 'bet or wager'—
''(A) means the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others...
The relevant part of that law is that: Bet/Wager = staking on others. Therefore, staking on one's self, but not on a game of chance, is completely legal just about everywhere in the USA.
A game of Chess, which I think we can agree is as far away from a game of chance such as roulette, and even more skill-dependant than mixed chance/skill games like Backgammon & Poker (another issue), when wagered on *by the participants*, is very legal.
It's akin to two (or more) people agreeing to a wager to see who can spit the farthest. Legal. If bystanders wagered on that contest, they, and only they, would be commiting an unlawful act. Illegal.
Also, if the wager included a strong enough element of chance, which factor is usually decided upon state by state, say, flipping coins, that would also be an unlawful act, regarless of who was wagering.
As an almost lifetime money poker player, pool player/bettor, backgammon junkie, & casino frequenter, I became apprised of these laws at a young age. I have had to correct folks on this point ever since. When people see money wagered, they tend to assume it's gambling, which is often illegal. This is not the case. When another pool player and I bet on the outcome of our game, it's 100% legal everywhere unless there is a local ordinance. The railbirds betting on us area different matter.
There is a reason why park hustlers don't get pinched for the money they bet on their Chess games, and it's not because the sums are small. It's because it's ok in the eyes of the law.
As to the rest of the topics in this thread.....whoooboy...not sure I even want to get involved...
Laws vary, ladies and gentlemen. Under sharia, for example, I understand that gambling of any kind attracts quite severe corporal punishment.
Perhaps the site could arrange to be unavailable within such jurisdictions. But perhaps the proprietors would not wish to do that.
People would be more motivated to cheat, so it won't work.
UltraLaser wrote:
knamit01 wrote:
UltraLaser wrote:
This thread has SO many flaws with it. Firstly, people would sandbag, so when and opponent thinks they will be getting easy money they then lose. Secondly it is illegal. Thirdly, it would in effect be encouraging use of engines during play (to the OP - your comment about both sides being able to use engines is again ridiculous, because almost everybody here enjoys playing using their own brain). Also, it would completely trash the site, there would be security issues, and most people would probably hate it if it was enforced. Just enjoy chess.com without the option of playing for money, and if you want to gamble then im sure you can do that over the board.
"Firstly, people would sandbag, so when and opponent thinks they will be getting easy money they then lose."
>>When only two players are involved and are playing for money(which they paid as the entry fee), why would they sandbag?. Their own money is at stake. Infact they will play their best to win.
"Secondly it is illegal".
>> Explain how? Pls quote the law if necessary. blake78613 has already done that above. You may refer to it.
Thirdly, it would in effect be encouraging use of engines during play (to the OP - your comment about both sides being able to use engines is again ridiculous, because almost everybody here enjoys playing using their own brain).
>> Agree. It MAY. But this is possible currently as well. Isnt it? And again I mention the amount to be meagre.. something which you can vile away at McDonalds.
Also, it would completely trash the site, there would be security issues, and most people would probably hate it if it was enforced. Just enjoy chess.com without the option of playing for money, and if you want to gamble then im sure you can do that over the board.
>>> I never said to enforce it for everyone. Just like when you create a challenge, you get the option of timed or untimed game, an additional option of money/ no money can be added.
Wow, I am sorry to hear you don't even know or understand what sandbagging is - i mean deliberately losing in games NOT for money, so it looks like they are a bad player and people think they can win money off them. If you want an option a rating for money games, then fine. But it would still be possible in games for less money and more money etc. Also note i said ***encouraging*** use of engines. BTW i don't need to explain why it is illegal, as someone who you said posted has already proven. Try reading comments before arguing with them, because who knows, maybe they will explain why there are flaws with your argument. Thank you.
What is wrong with you? If they sandbag, their ratings will diminish as they will lose. You have an option to see their highest ratings during the whole span of their membership. That will give the idea if they really are sandbagging. Incase they create a completely separate account, which is possible, they win their ratings increase, they get money, but beyond a point they cant as their ratings will increase substantially. so they have to lose and forfeit their money. it is a no profit thing for them to do and it would be really silly if someone does it.
johnyoudell wrote:
Laws vary, ladies and gentlemen. Under sharia, for example, I understand that gambling of any kind attracts quite severe corporal punishment.
Perhaps the site could arrange to be unavailable within such jurisdictions. But perhaps the proprietors would not wish to do that.
One cant really abolish "stupid" laws (I have no intentions to insult anyone but if such laws really exist, they just seem stupid to me) unless they stand against it. Moreover it is **NOT** gambling. I have no idea why people cant see the difference between gamblng and a tournament between two people.
knamit01, you're totally missing the 'sandbagging' point.
The idea is that somebody can lose many non-money games to keep their rating low and lure people into playing them for money. They'd win the money games, but if they're playing many non-money games along the money games their ratings will remain low, and they will always be low (so looking at highest rating doesn't help).
fdar wrote:
knamit01, you're totally missing the 'sandbagging' point.
The idea is that somebody can lose many non-money games to keep their rating low and lure people into playing them for money. They'd win the money games, but if they're playing many non-money games along the money games their ratings will remain low, and they will always be low (so looking at highest rating doesn't help)
Ok this made sense to me finally. Thank you for the explanation. You are right. This is possible. A solution can be to keep their money ratings separate. But this is all workable. All cases can be discussed and solutions found out. My initial concern was to see what people think of this idea. But I cant understand why they seem to have this pre-conceived idea that it is gambling.
there is no sense in gambling money at chess online without chess engines being permissible. you can do that by playing ICCF/LSS correspondence chess for instance. with money comes the incentive to cheat and it's all too easy to acquire the means.
i would think gambling is far more infrequent in predicting results in chess relative to sports because the rating system is too accurate, there is too little variance in expected result compared to the actual result in chess contests.
Just found out that it is legal in India - The New Delhi court ruled out -
The court also said: “So, while betting or playing for money among players on a game of golf, chess, bridge or billiards may be permitted, they cannot be considered legal if operated by a gaming house.”
For US - Found this from the FAQ of another website - chessmoney
Most states in the United States define unlawful Internet gambling as activities where the opportunity to win is predominantly subject to chance. Because chess is a 100% skill-based game that involves absolutely no element of chance, playing chess for money is not considered gambling in those states.
Some states do equate all forms of online gaming for money with gambling. This is the reason why ChessMoney does not allow residents of those states to play chess for money (The current list includes Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, South Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, Washington and Vermont).
So it boils down to their interpretation of "Gambling".
You copied that from me?