Is Chess gambling?

Originally posted by wormwood
so, you believe taking part to an uscf tournament is gambling?

I don't believe it differs substantially from entering a poker tournament.

Whether you want to call both or neither of those gambling, I don't really care. My claim is that there is not a good reason to call one gambling and not the other, nor to abstain from one on religious grounds while not abstaining from the other.

Same thing for pro and amateur bass fishing tournaments.

Originally posted by gambit3
Same thing for pro and amateur bass fishing tournaments.

Except that fishing is stupid.

Originally posted by gambit3
Same thing for pro and amateur bass fishing tournaments.

Are you ANGLING for a rec? You got it, buddy!

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Whether you want to call both or neither of those gambling, I don't really care. My claim is that there is not a good reason to call one gambling and not the other, nor to abstain from one on religious grounds while not abstaining from the other.

hence what I said about room for philosophical debate. - dogmatism might have it's virtues, but it doesn't lend itself well to the pragmatic nature of human life or world. or, just because the spectrum of light is continuous, doesn't mean there's no practical use of the concept of colors.

Originally posted by LanndonKane
You pay money to enter a golf tournament and win prizes, do you think golf is gambling?

No.

To me poker is different. You are playing with your money. You buy chips with your money, the more money you got the more you can buy, if you lose you can buy some more.

However in golf and chess you lose your out. Can't use money to buy your way back in. Of course i'm talking about playing poker for money and not those tournament poker stuff.

Originally posted by dottewell
Wasn't it banned in 1979 in Iran for this reason?

[edit: http://www.askasia.org/teachers/essays/essay.php?no=82]

Yes I heard about that. It is written on many ancient document.

Ah hah! I got it.

Chess isn't not based on luck. You both start with the same pieces and have equal chances to win.

Poker you are dealt cards. Not the same cards as the other guy. Thus if you believe in luck then there you go. Poker has a some luck involved.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't believe it differs substantially from entering a poker tournament.

Whether you want to call both or neither of those gambling, I don't really care. My claim is that there is not a good reason to call one gambling and not the other, nor to abstain from one on religious grounds while not abstaining from the other.

Playing poker online for fun is okay. I don't consider that gambling. But if your playing with real money then to me that is gambling since you are betting your money.

As for poker tournment where you pay an entry fee and get chips to play with I consider that gambling because it has to do with luck. You don't start with the same hands and to me you could be the best poker player but if you keep getting bad cards you will lose. You don't hold the outcome in your hands. It's up to chance and odds etc...

That is why I consider poker gambling if money is involved.

Originally posted by RahimK
Playing poker online for fun is okay. I don't consider that gambling. But if your playing with real money then to me that is gambling since you are betting your money.

As for poker tournment where you pay an entry fee and get chips to play with I consider that gambling because it has to do with luck. You don't start with the same hands and to me you could ...[text shortened]... up to chance and odds etc...

That is why I consider poker gambling if money is involved.

Do you understand the theory of the Elo rating system?

Life is a gamble.

If played for money........it IS gambling!!!

Gambling with chess is, simply put (IMHO), degrading the very nature of the game.
In almost all chess clubs in my country (Argentina), you must pay a fee to enter a tourny (even if you are afiliated or not to that club and pay a regular fee for the afiliation).
The collected money goes to buy new chess sets, clocks and for the general club maintanance. Some of this money is put by them to buy a trophy (a cup, a medal. whatever), for the winner (2nd and 3rd post may be included).
So, in my honest opinion, this allow chess clubs to survive.
Of course, you can gamble. But only in blitz tournaments, say once a week, and informal blitz tourneys.

- J

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you understand the theory of the Elo rating system?

Who cares?

If you rating is 1200 or 2000 you start with the same pieces don't you. If your not as great as the other person you can learn to play better.

As for poker, you can learn all you want and be a star player but if you get dealt bad cards you will lose.

In chess you play with the same pieces Fischer used to beat Spassky, Anand used to beat Kasp etc...

They have a quote about that on chessgames.com but I can't find it anymore.

Explain to me how the outcome of a chess game is not in your own hands? You play good and you win and move on.

You can play you best at poker but with bad hands you won't win.

Originally posted by RahimK

Explain to me how the outcome of a chess game is not in your own hands?

A 1640 player plays a 1400 player.

What is the likelihood that the 1400 player wins?

Is it zero?

Or is it 20% (which happens to be about the same likelihood as making a draw to a flush on the flop in hold'em)?


If the 1640 player held the outcome in his hands, he, being the better player, would always win. Similarly, if the only resource the 1400 player has is his own ability, then he, being the worse player, would always lose, as his only resource is inferior to that of his opponent. There is nothing in your view of the game that can account for why the worse player sometimes wins. Nor can you account for why you can't determine ahead of time which player will win any given game.

Thus, you can either believe that there is no chance element in chess competitions, or you can accept the Elo rating system as meaningful, but you can't have both, since the theory of the Elo system is grounded in expectation and explicitly claims that the outcome of any particular game is a probabilistic function of the players' relative abilities.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
A 1640 player plays a 1400 player.

What is the likelihood that the 1400 player wins?

Is it zero?

Or is it 20% (which happens to be about the same likelihood as making a draw to a flush on the flop in hold'em)?


If the 1640 player held the outcome in his hands, he, being the better player, would always win. Similarly, if the only reso ...[text shortened]... tcome of any particular game is a probabilistic function of the players' relative abilities.

If a player loses in chess it's his own fault. You both started out with the same material.

When people lose in poker you sometime hear them complaining, aw I got bad cards, it wasn't my fault.

That seems like a valid excuse. In chess it's your own fault.

Plus why is the person a 1400 player? They should study and become better. As for poker practise all you want. Bad cards = losing.

The main point i'm trying to get across is that in chess you start with the same material. If you aren't as good as your opponent that's your problem. Deal with it.

In poker it's not all up to you. It depends what cards you get. Call it luck, chance whatever you want. You don't start off with the same material = cards.