Chess & Betting

So do you know any bookmakers who offer odds on chessmatches?
I mean not just on who will become world champion but also al the GM games for lets say the 3rd round in the Corus tournament?

If not, would it be a good idea to do so?
If there is (more) money at stake it is bound to get more interest.

see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/opinion/27shahade.html

It has this interesting statement.

A Chris Moneymaker can come out of nowhere to win a poker championship,
but an unknown will never beat Topalov in a single game.
Because there is no luck in chess, gambling at tournaments is unfeasible -
after all, why would an amateur with no chance to win contribute to a chess pot?

Further, Internet chess cheating, already a problem because dishonest players can
use sophisticated computer programs to decide their moves,
would balloon out of control if money were at stake.

(Online card rooms don't have the same problem, because poker
computers are still too weak to dominate human opponents.)

*****

Perhaps the Rybka guys should get onto doing a Poker Program.

(there is luck in chess - one just has to play over a few games
in the swindles threads that pop up now and then.)

I deny you that chess is a game of any luck.
Chess is a game of perfect knowledge, the only luck is the shortcomings of your opponents, but that is independent of the actual board of chess.

Its not like you roll a die every turn and if its a 6 your queen can move like majaraja, if you roll a 1 or a 5 is a normal queen if you roll a 2 your queen can move like a bishop, 3 a rook, 4 a knight.
That would introduce luck.

Quote:

"Chess is a game of perfect knowledge, the only luck is the shortcomings of your opponents."

So you do actually admit there is luck in chess.😀

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Quote:

"Chess is a game of perfect knowledge, the only luck is the shortcomings of your opponents."

So you do actually admit there is luck in chess.😀

I think theoratically we cannot deduce that from that quot. we could say:

Chess, as a game in itself, doesn't involve any luck. but the people playing it could sometimes get lucky 🙂

Originally posted by diskamyl
I think theoratically we cannot deduce that from that quot. we could say:

Chess, as a game in itself, doesn't involve any luck. but the people playing it could sometimes get lucky 🙂

That sounds just about right.

Lucky for me you were about. I could not have put it better.

Luck, I suppose if you get matched with the only 1000 in a tournament where everyone else (including you) is ranked above 2000.

But thats not chess there being a factor of luck. Thats luck concerning an opponent not luck on the board.

Chess and gambling is a fun event. I've lost more than I've won 😛

A lot of such can be found in major city parks for $1, $2, $5 games. Even $1 games are tricky because usually these blitz games are played by homeless people who are insanely good because that's all they do.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Quote:

"Chess is a game of perfect knowledge, the only luck is the shortcomings of your opponents."

So you do actually admit there is luck in chess.😀

Players less than master level learn many opening lines, opening traps, tactical tricks, and endgame techniques. Until a player is able to form a plan and create these tools in his own games as planned then it is merely by chance for a player to find one of these tricks in one of his games. It will happen. You will be able to win a game with a rook and 2 pawns versus a rook, or even a bishop & knight versus a lone king, but you will only do this by chance. The situation occurred in your game, not by choice, but by happenstance. It is wonderful that you are able to recognize a position when it happens, but it is sad that you don't know how to make them happen. I use the word "you" as inclusive. I too am a member of this group of players who plays the best game possible and depends on chance to provide an opportunity. I study several hours each day trying to get beyond chance, but it still exists. So, in conclusion, I can not agree that chess is a game of perfect information. The weaker the player the more he depends on chance. How can you say it is a game of perfect information if you can't even tell me why such and such grandmaster resigned? It's not perfect information; it is imperfect information. Until you can read you are considered illiterate. Until you can understand the skills of math you are considered innumerate. Until you have a broad understand of chess you are a wood pusher (I need a better word here for someone who is chess illiterate).

It's OK with me if people wager on chess games. I however want none of it. Betting is fine with me in things like poker, roulette etc. I just think chess should be as free from wagering as possible. Too much temptation for cheating otherwise.
🙂

Chess is a game of perfect information because everything is on the board.

Whether you possess the tools to deal with that perfect information is different.
Whether your opponent can read what skeezy traps greenpawn has lain is a different matter as well.

But everything is on the board. nothing is hidden from either player's eyes. Unlike poker where you cannot truly know what your opponent has until he flips his cards.

Originally posted by MetBierOp
So do you know any bookmakers who offer odds on chessmatches?
I mean not just on who will become world champion but also al the GM games for lets say the 3rd round in the Corus tournament?

If not, would it be a good idea to do so?
If there is (more) money at stake it is bound to get more interest.

Well back in mid 2002 in a thread of the Usenet group rec.games.chess.misc there was a post "Betting on Chess" and gave a link to a UK based betting exchange called Betsson. This was a couple of days before the Dortmund Sparkassen chess tournament. Intrigued, I checked out the site and was delighted to find a very intuitive interface that allowed you to set up your own bets, take the bets of others, negotiate amounts, etc. They were covering all major chess events and you could be on a multitude of markets including individual game winner, tournament winner, etc. For some games, chess being one of them, LIVE betting was even allowed where you can accept and offer bets during the game.

I was surprised to see the generous odds being given on Peter Leko, who was making huge strides in his game at that time. I gathered that most of the would be "bookies" who were offering action, didn't know much about chess or chess players, but were simply looking at the ratings and trying to "play the math". I bet on Leko to win the event, and was watching the games live on ICC, with a Betsson window open in the task bar as well. There was a particular game: Topalov vs Leko in which Leko played a Sveshnikov Sicilian. Topalov, who was much higher rated than Leko at that time, made a critical mistake late in the middlegame and my engine (as well as my own observation) confirmed that Topalov's position was now lost. I quickly alt-tabbed to the Betsson betting window and there was indeed still some action available on the game, and at 7-1 odds against Leko!! I won over $100 on that game alone and after the tournament was over another $400 or so, only risking a few dollars of my own money.

Shortly after this event Betsson stopped offering the Live Betting on chess events, and a few years after that stopped covering chess events altogether. I don't know if there are any other betting exchanges that currently do.

Originally posted by tamuzi
Chess is a game of perfect information because everything is on the board.

Whether you possess the tools to deal with that perfect information is different.
Whether your opponent can read what skeezy traps greenpawn has lain is a different matter as well.

But everything is on the board. nothing is hidden from either player's eyes. Unlike poker where you cannot truly know what your opponent has until he flips his cards.

Well that's not precisely true. In "game-theory", perfect information is said to refer to a class of game in which players move alternately and each player is completely informed of previous moves. However, "everything" is NOT at the board. Players like Tal, Lasker, and many others, understood this truth well. You are playing a human opponent with subjective, emotional whims and biases, as well as theoretical holes and strengths.

Just as in poker, where you try to put the pieces of the puzzle (in terms of your opponents' psychology and predilections) together with induction, observation, and reason, the same must be done in chess. Especially at the higher levels of the game. You can't see. at the board, if your opponent is an expert at the Marshall Attack and weak at the Open Ruy. Or if he is in his element in slow, strategic closed positions, like Botvinnik, or prefers open tactical struggles.

And there IS luck in chess. It's just that there is much LESS luck in chess, than most, if not all, other games.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/27/opinion/27shahade.html

It has this interesting statement.

A Chris Moneymaker can come out of nowhere to win a poker championship,
but an unknown will never beat Topalov in a single game.
Because there is no luck in chess, gambling at tournaments is unfeasible -
after all, why would an amateur with no ess - one just has to play over a few games
in the swindles threads that pop up now and then.)

I read that article just now, and it gained my interest right from the beginning, as I know that the author, Jennifer Shahade, is the sister of Greg Shahade who has made hundreds of very entertaining videos of his blitz games/analysis in chessvideos.tv

I don't agree that chess could gain any popularity that could even compete with poker. people (doesn't matter from which country) are just the way they are, and they seem only to go worse and worse each decade. I think the glory days of chess, if they ever existed, are behind us, like 40-50 years, when it had some kind of political importance because of USSR.

small notes:
1) at the end of the article, it's funny they avoided to give the name of the author's recent book with the statement "Jennifer Shahade, the United States women's chess champion in 2002 and 2004, is the author of a recent book about women in chess."

the name of the book is CHESS BITCH ! 🙂

2)Greg Shahade was also a young and talented chess player in the US, and had become IM, but he quit professional chess and started becoming a professional poker player, just like his sister. he still runs the US chess league though, and persistently plays and makes videos of his blitz games in ICC. (with the handle chesstudy and curtains). they are apparently a very interesting family.

Originally posted by diskamyl
I read that article just now, and it gained my interest right from the beginning, as I know that the author, Jennifer Shahade, is the sister of Greg Shahade who has made hundreds of very entertaining videos of his blitz games/analysis in chessvideos.tv

I don't agree that chess could gain any popularity that could even compete with poker. people (doesn't ...[text shortened]... (with the handle chesstudy and curtains). they are apparently a very interesting family.

"they are apparently a very interesting family"

I thought that BEFORE I saw Greg wearing a pink wig!