Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
Do we need to start a thread on the meaning of the word "luck"?

If you play the best move for the next 4,000 moves of your chess career you
will win between 100 and 300 games and lose none, regardless of your
opponent's frame of mind, what color shirt he wears, etc.
If you let play two identical strong players play against each other.
How do you call it if one wins? Deserved? Luck? What else?
2b sure the players are of exactly the same strength let the same
programms play against itself.


The same is not
true for backgammon since for 100 games your opponents can simply get better
dice and make several mistakes per game but still win.
Yes. This can be true.... and is about as probably as winning the first
price in a lottery. It can happen, but will you bet on it?
If you believe BG is just luck, try one of the programms monty
mentioned or my program BGBlitz. Play with *manual* dice to avoid any
excuse, play on 3-ply lookahed 100 games. I bet you will correct your
statement. Most probably you will loose at least half a point per game,
maybe more.

Thus, objectively,
luck plays no role in chess if you continue to play the best move.
For mere mortals. If you choose a distinct opening e.g. French and your
opponent is a specialist in it or not. How do you call that? Or if your
opponent was on party last night and plays worse than usual? Or isn't
the ELO-number based on the *probability* to win? Hey
probability=random= luck?

In
backgammon you can still lose, quite badly at that, by playing the best
move.
Yes. On the short run. Play 100 games against BGBlitz on his highest
setting, then we could talk again. If luck is predominat you should
come up even? Would you bet on that?

Any of you, such as "Inconnux" who know how to play backgammon and
would like to show me all of the luck involved I'll play you any stakes
you like ... anyone. Afterwards feel free to whine about my lucky dice
and how I just seemed to roll what I needed all the time.

I would elaborate but I was linked to this off rgb and the topic has
been pushed off the main board already and I doubt many will keep
reading it. If you'd like to discuss this further feel free to post on
my forums, http://www.bgonline.org/forums/

Stick

ahh its being crossposted... ok this confirms that Ive been feeding
a troll. This topic was first posted in a Chess newsgroup. Do I
want to play you at BG? no, as I have stated before, I don't like
the game. I don't like any game that has even a remote 'luck' factor.
What we were debating was whether BG has a luck factor at all.
I still believe that because of any game that uses dice, there is a
large amount of luck involved. Not so in chess.
I also don't like many other games such as Monopoly, Sorry,
most Card games for the same reason.

Is there some skill involved in these 'luck' based games? of
course there is, but it takes a series of games to show it.
Same goes for activities such as handicapping race horses.
My father is an exceptional handicapper, could almost be
described as a professional at it, I on the other hand am happy
to break even. Is there luck involved in handicapping
racehorses? of course there is, thus the reason why I
don't go to the track very often. If you enjoy these types
of games, more power to you.

I have probably said things that have of offended many
BG players. If so I do appologize for this. I can often
be caustic when I get fired up... So If you enjoy
backgammon over chess, its because of your personal
taste in games... the same reason why I prefer chess over
games like backgammon.

icc 'Inconnux'

Inconnux wrote:

"the reason I win or lose is solely based on what move I make... not
some random
card dealt to me or the roll of some dice. "

"sure over a period of time, but in each individual game luck plays a
HUGE factor in these types of games."

"Where as there is NONE involved in chess. "

"If I played ONE game against the world backgammon champion I have a
chance at
winning due to good dice rolls."

"perhaps for you it isnt but I find 'study' much more enjoyable and
far more stimulating than rolling random numbers. "

"when I see a backgammon board I think "theres another mindless luck
game"
__________________________________________________ _________________________
Take them one by one? Comparing poker & backgammon (as I've often
seen) is one of the biggest stretches in the world. I'm a professional
poker player and a backgammon obsessive and the people who play poker
for a living could beat you without being dealt cards as long as you
didn't know they weren't dealt cards. It's also not one roll of the
dice that constitutes a backgammon match.

I also hate to break it to you but if you're, paraphrasing your words,
not the strongest chess player in the world, luck does factor in.
Sure, you make moves, yoyou have your strategy mapped out, but don't
tell me for one minute that you've never looked up and noticed you've
completely overlooked something that changes the face of the entire
game. Isn't that considered lucky?

If you played one match of backgammon to 25 (World Championship length)
versus any of the best players in the world I'd imagine you would roll
in around 0% to win.

"Another mindless luck game, rolling random numbers", etc... I think
these quotes speak for themselves. It takes years to become a World
Class Backgammon player. I'm sorry you've never had the pleasure of
playing the game how it is supposed to be played. Trying to knock down
games like poker or backgammon to make chess seem more "worthy" for
lack of a better word is a feeble attempt. I'd never knock chess,
there are aspects of other games I prefer over chess and that's why I
don't play anymore, but it's a great game, just different.

There are lots of things you don't have to deal with in chess that you
do have to deal with in backgammon, and on top of that a lot of still
different variables that come in to play in poker v. either of these
games. I'm going to stop before I start ...

Stick ... feeling bad for you if you don't like any games w/a luck
factor. With this statement it's impossible to like any card games or
board games whereas I love all card games and I'd say most board games.
Even Trivial Pursuit has that damn die in it for rolling, so you could
get lucky and Ken Jennings may never land on the center again and you
could own him up...

I also hate to break it to you but if you're, paraphrasing your words,
not the strongest chess player in the world, luck does factor in.
Sure, you make moves, yoyou have your strategy mapped out, but don't
tell me for one minute that you've never looked up and noticed you've
completely overlooked something that changes the face of the entire
game. Isn't that considered lucky?


No, it means my skill level hasnt reached a high enough point for me
to find the move. The move was always there and I could have made
the move if I had found it. No luck involved there. Have I ever
looked up
and then saw the move? of course, but that is not considered luck.
Luck involves some form of random chance thrown into the mix.
with chess there is none.

If you played one match of backgammon to 25 (World Championship length)
versus any of the best players in the world I'd imagine you would roll
in around 0% to win.

But if I played one game against the champion, i would have a chance
to beat a world class player because I could get lucky and roll some
good
numbers and he could roll some bad ones. The same goes for card games,
if I played one game against a professional class player and drew good
cards I could win. All of these are due to the 'luck factor' that is
involved in
these kind of games. Now anyone trying to play a world class chess
player
would have 0% chance of beating him because chess is a game that
is solely based on skill.


"Another mindless luck game, rolling random numbers", etc... I think
these quotes speak for themselves.

These quotes were to a specific person who said that whenever he
looks at a chess board, he sees drudgery, where as I flamed him right
back. probably not the best response....


It takes years to become a World
Class Backgammon player. I'm sorry you've never had the pleasure of
playing the game how it is supposed to be played. Trying to knock down
games like poker or backgammon to make chess seem more "worthy" for
lack of a better word is a feeble attempt. I'd never knock chess,
there are aspects of other games I prefer over chess and that's why I
don't play anymore, but it's a great game, just different.


in another post I have apologized for that comment. I do agree with
you that there is skill involved in these kind of games.

I wasn't saying that chess is more worthy, i was stating that there
is no luck involved and that is why i choose to play chess.
Note that this all started when a troll decided to post why he thinks
backgammon is a better game than chess...

Stick ... feeling bad for you if you don't like any games w/a luck
factor. With this statement it's impossible to like any card games or
board games whereas I love all card games and I'd say most board games.
Even Trivial Pursuit has that damn die in it for rolling, so you could
get lucky and Ken Jennings may never land on the center again and you
could own him up...

I don't like any games that involve a luck factor, i find them
extremely
frustrating where chess is one of the few games that I enjoy. If you
enjoy
games with a 'luck factor' then more power to ya, but it all comes down
to individual tastes.

wrote:
markgravitygood's attitude demonstrates many of the points I make to
people in this context. For example, I wish there was a backgammon
team in high school and not a chess team, which I was on. Chess is for
the Don Quixote's of the world, or the Captain Ahab's. Unless you have
the technical skill, you will always be chasing the great white whale,
and you will always be going down with your ship. Backgammon is fun
even when you lose, so long as you know that you are better than your
opponent, because you know the odds will catch up with him/her.
Backgammon is the game of "ultra-sophistication," not chess, which is
best suited for those who think they will be the next Alexander the
Great of the gaming world. Chess is about being able to "out-study"
and "out-calculate" your opponents, and you either can or you can't -
not much of a "game." You are chasing impossible dreams, and you don't
even realize it. It is more about fighting personal "demons" than
anything else, unless you are one of the few that can make a good
living by doing it. In backgammon, there are countless subtleties, and
you can tell when your opponent doesn't see what you do, and you know
it's like you are the fisherman and he/she is the fish. And if you
play every day, you are constantly learning about these subtlteties. I
keep a little book and write down things that are of signficance -
things I know I can use in the future to win. And what does my clearly
inferior get? Some wins here and there due to the dice factor. I will
gladly give that to him/her any day, in order to keep them coming back
for more. Would I play Kasparov for $1000 if all I had to do was to
win one game against him out of 20? Never.

But I don't want to distract from my main point, and that is once you
see how backgammon functions in practice, along with what you need to
know and how you can go about learning it (as well as the fact that
your opponents can only be a bit better than you once you reach a
certain level), there is just no comparison. Chess is fine in theory,
but it is hopeless drudgery in practice, though I can see how people
with certain personalities are draw to it like moths to the flame.

And don't distract from your main point by simply ignoring several
relevant and important points I made in the comparison of the two
games, and argue with yourself. Nobody cares that you would not play
Kasparov. Your blanket psychological profile of chess players is
laughable. What Impossible Dreams am I chasing? Perhaps me achieving a
rating of 2200 is my 'dream'? Does it make it any less valid because it
is not the fantastical dream you assume all chess players have about
becoming world champion? Or is it simply just sour grapes in that there
really is not an equivalent for Backgammon? And how strange that I
would take a look on Yahoo and discover that most of the Backgammon
rooms have less than 10 players in them, yet each chess room, as many,
have over 100 each.

For a game that is 'clearly better than chess' it appears to be
suffering a case of bad press.

At least that is the press you are giving it. Try not to confuse the
love of a game (chess) by others with the failing obsession you had
with it at one time. The fact you failed in reaching your goals in
Chess means either you did not apply yourself, you lack the
intelligence/drive/commitment, or you simply set your goals too high.

We forgive you.

In "money games," it's important that people who aren't very good win
once in a while, or else it is a "dead" game. Chess is a "semi-money
game," in that there is a small number of real "pros" who make a very
good "living" at it, a secondary group that is either just "getting by"
or have "second jobs," and the dreamers, or whatever you want to call
them. I am not counting the "ringers" in open tournaments with
different classes. If nothing else, the "Searching for Bobby Fischer"
movie made this point.

Worrying about "losing" once in a while in backgammon due to "luck" is
just silly (except for the possibility that money sites are
manipulating the dice software to keep poor players from losing their
money too quickly - that is a reasonable concern, since there is no
independent oversight). As a former "serious" chess player, I can
identifiy with the desire for "purity" - if you play "perfectly" you
want to win, but again, who except for a dozen or so people would play
Kasparov 20 games for "serious money," and only have to win one of
those 20 games (or keep the score even, in the event that all the games
were draws)? And he is not going to play every move perfectly in those
20 games (unless you are so bad that you make it ridiculously easy for
him - I'm assuming that you are at least a "master"). In backgammon,
it is much easier to become a very strong player, and then you will
find people to play you 20 games, or 20 matches (or more, of course).
They will win once in a while - that is what keeps them coming back.
But you will know that in the long run they will lose money to you. I
played a series of single games (DMP) against a weak player the other
day, and yes, he did get lucky and win one more game than me, out of
eleven. I reviewed the games and was pleased with the decisions I made
when I was not certain if I had made the best move (sometimes you make
the second best move but it is so close as to not matter much, if at
all).

Right now, backgammon has everything going for it, with a couple of
exceptions: there should be more "Swiss" style tournaments, rather than
elimination match tournaments, and the money sites take too much "rake"
when you win (and have some odd rake structures as well). It's major
advantages a

1. Free, "pro" software that allows you to improve you game quickly.

2. Plenty of weak players willing to play online for money.

3. Speed: you can play a lot of games in the time it takes to play one
chess game (even in a game where you have to play all your moves in
half an hour). Go to youtube.com, search for backgammon, and watch the
"pro" play to get a sense of it.

4. Various formats, which allow you to "groove" your game to a specific
format that you excel at - and you know that many if not most of your
opponents don't, even if they are not especially weak.

5. It's easy to tell if you opponent is cheating, and then you can just
avoid that player in the future and notify the site.

6. Ease with which one can learn the rules and become an "intermediate"
level player, allowing more money to continually come into the game.

7. Obviously, the internet. Plenty of chess to be played on the
internet, but not for money. This is the key point. Plenty of people
playing poker for money, but that is a game that is just about focus,
patience, discipline, etc. It's not fun if you play it for "serious
money" - it's more like being an accountant. Over time, backgammon may
become much more popular, while poker evens out or loses players. In
this context, chess may become irrelevant, in terms of online money
play. Once you become very good at backgammon, it may be possible to
"make a good living" playing online, with much less of the "ups and
downs" of poker.

8. Lastly, and very important to me, there is an intellectual
satisfaction to backgammon that is superior to chess. As I said in
another post, I found myself not learning much about chess, but instead
one just has to "calculate" correctly in the "interesting" positions,
and so often that calculation turns out to be wrong anyway. What did
you learn? Simple; you are not perfect, and chess is beyond the
ability of humans to truly master, with the possible exception of a few
individuals who can hold their own against the strongest computer
opponents. With backgammon, I find interesting nuances all the time,
and it leads me into a deeper understanding of what makes the game
"tick." I can then use that understanding to consider different
positions that are similar. This occurs in chess to some degree, of
course, but in backgammon there is only a little "opening knowledge"
that is necessary if you grasp some key general concepts, and the rest
is understanding, with a tiny amount of "calcuation" (leaving aside pip
counting, which is done automatically when you play online and just
takes a minute or so otherwise). Chess on a high level requires
knowing large amounts of all kinds of "technical" information, then
being able to "calculate" better than your opponent, and having an
understanding of general concepts. Only a small number of people have
demonstrated an ability to do this - that is the reality. And so a
claim about "chasing dreams" is simply a statement of fact. Look at
how few world chapions there have been since Steinitz. Consider the
long periods of time when chess was dominated by one person (if that
person was interested in being "number one," unlike Fischer).

wrote:
Or isn't the ELO-number based on the *probability* to win? Hey
probability=random= luck?

The rating allows you to estimate the probability of winning based
only on a knowledge of the past performances of the players. However,
the game itself is not random. (Though, as you mentioned, there are
random factors based on the preparation and readiness of the players.)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Happy Laser (TM): it's like an intense
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ beam of light that makes your troubles
melt away!

wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Among those skills in backgammon are such diverse elements as fear,
surprise, positioning your men to minimize the number of rolls that
are bad for you, using the doubling cube and, oh, I'll come in
again.

I'm sorry to add that a skilled player is also in a good position to
cheat without easily being detected by a novice opponent.

Sure but the `skilled player' must also be able to beat players who
are slightly less skilled (but more skilled than novices), without
cheating. Just like in chess against a total patzer, you can probably
get away with making long bishop and rook moves that aren't quite
diagonals or files.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated Watch (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a precision chronometer but it's
invigorating!

wrote:
In "money games," it's important that people who aren't very good win
once in a while, or else it is a "dead" game. Chess is a "semi-money
game," in that there is a small number of real "pros" who make a very
good "living" at it, a secondary group that is either just "getting by"
or have "second jobs," and the dreamers, or whatever you want to call
them. I am not counting the "ringers" in open tournaments with
different classes. If nothing else, the "Searching for Bobby Fischer"
movie made this point.

Worrying about "losing" once in a while in backgammon due to "luck" is
just silly (except for the possibility that money sites are
manipulating the dice software to keep poor players from losing their
money too quickly - that is a reasonable concern, since there is no
independent oversight). As a former "serious" chess player, I can
identifiy with the desire for "purity" - if you play "perfectly" you
want to win, but again, who except for a dozen or so people would play
Kasparov 20 games for "serious money," and only have to win one of
those 20 games (or keep the score even, in the event that all the games
were draws)? And he is not going to play every move perfectly in those
20 games (unless you are so bad that you make it ridiculously easy for
him - I'm assuming that you are at least a "master"). In backgammon,
it is much easier to become a very strong player, and then you will
find people to play you 20 games, or 20 matches (or more, of course).
They will win once in a while - that is what keeps them coming back.
But you will know that in the long run they will lose money to you. I
played a series of single games (DMP) against a weak player the other
day, and yes, he did get lucky and win one more game than me, out of
eleven. I reviewed the games and was pleased with the decisions I made
when I was not certain if I had made the best move (sometimes you make
the second best move but it is so close as to not matter much, if at
all).

Right now, backgammon has everything going for it, with a couple of
exceptions: there should be more "Swiss" style tournaments, rather than
elimination match tournaments, and the money sites take too much "rake"
when you win (and have some odd rake structures as well). It's major
advantages a

1. Free, "pro" software that allows you to improve you game quickly.

2. Plenty of weak players willing to play online for money.

3. Speed: you can play a lot of games in the time it takes to play one
chess game (even in a game where you have to play all your moves in
half an hour). Go to youtube.com, search for backgammon, and watch the
"pro" play to get a sense of it.

4. Various formats, which allow you to "groove" your game to a specific
format that you excel at - and you know that many if not most of your
opponents don't, even if they are not especially weak.

5. It's easy to tell if you opponent is cheating, and then you can just
avoid that player in the future and notify the site.

6. Ease with which one can learn the rules and become an "intermediate"
level player, allowing more money to continually come into the game.

7. Obviously, the internet. Plenty of chess to be played on the
internet, but not for money. This is the key point. Plenty of people
playing poker for money, but that is a game that is just about focus,
patience, discipline, etc. It's not fun if you play it for "serious
money" - it's more like being an accountant. Over time, backgammon may
become much more popular, while poker evens out or loses players. In
this context, chess may become irrelevant, in terms of online money
play. Once you become very good at backgammon, it may be possible to
"make a good living" playing online, with much less of the "ups and
downs" of poker.

8. Lastly, and very important to me, there is an intellectual
satisfaction to backgammon that is superior to chess. As I said in
another post, I found myself not learning much about chess, but instead
one just has to "calculate" correctly in the "interesting" positions,
and so often that calculation turns out to be wrong anyway. What did
you learn? Simple; you are not perfect, and chess is beyond the
ability of humans to truly master, with the possible exception of a few
individuals who can hold their own against the strongest computer
opponents. With backgammon, I find interesting nuances all the time,
and it leads me into a deeper understanding of what makes the game
"tick." I can then use that understanding to consider different
positions that are similar. This occurs in chess to some degree, of
course, but in backgammon there is only a little "opening knowledge"
that is necessary if you grasp some key general concepts, and the rest
is understanding, with a tiny amount of "calcuation" (leaving aside pip
counting, which is done automatically when you play online and just
takes a minute or so otherwise). Chess on a high level requires
knowing large amounts of all kinds of "technical" information, then
being able to "calculate" better than your opponent, and having an
understanding of general concepts. Only a small number of people have
demonstrated an ability to do this - that is the reality. And so a
claim about "chasing dreams" is simply a statement of fact. Look at
how few world chapions there have been since Steinitz. Consider the
long periods of time when chess was dominated by one person (if that
person was interested in being "number one," unlike Fischer).

So it appears you are simply a backgammon shill looking to recruit more
inexperienced players so you can take their money. Strange how you
compare the negatives of chess of having to play the best players in
the world to prove the 'purity' of the game, but in your argument for
backgammon, any 'weak player' will do for you and suffices as proof.

Congrats on that and good luck.

Worrying about "losing" once in a while in backgammon due to "luck" is
just silly

That is only your personal perspective, I hate losing to 'luck'

In backgammon,
it is much easier to become a very strong player, and then you will
find people to play you 20 games, or 20 matches (or more, of course).
They will win once in a while - that is what keeps them coming back.

and that factor is what drives me away.

But you will know that in the long run they will lose money to you.

I personally play Chess for the enjoyment of the game not for
the motivation of money.

1. Free, "pro" software that allows you to improve you game quickly.

Try Arena (free) and the huge amount of free engines that
are available which can beat most players. (Rybka 1.0 beta
could probably beat all players which is FREE)


2. Plenty of weak players willing to play online for money.

Once again money seems to be the motivator, where as
the game seems to be the motivator in chess.

3. Speed: you can play a lot of games in the time it takes to play one
chess game (even in a game where you have to play all your moves in
half an hour). Go to youtube.com, search for backgammon, and watch the
"pro" play to get a sense of it.

blitz play, bullet play etc... all available for quick games in chess.

5. It's easy to tell if you opponent is cheating, and then you can just
avoid that player in the future and notify the site.

although not perfect, ICC does have ways to detect cheating

6. Ease with which one can learn the rules and become an "intermediate"
level player, allowing more money to continually come into the game.

so ease is a motivator for you. The challenge of chess is the
motivator
for me.

7. Obviously, the internet. Plenty of chess to be played on the
internet, but not for money. This is the key point.

once again money, not the game seems to be the
key motivator

Plenty of people
playing poker for money, but that is a game that is just about focus,
patience, discipline, etc. It's not fun if you play it for "serious
money" - it's more like being an accountant. Over time, backgammon may
become much more popular, while poker evens out or loses players.

with people like you promoting the game, I highly doubt it.

8. Lastly, and very important to me, there is an intellectual
satisfaction to backgammon that is superior to chess. As I said in
another post, I found myself not learning much about chess, but instead
one just has to "calculate" correctly in the "interesting" positions,
and so often that calculation turns out to be wrong anyway.

so ease of the challenge is a motivator to you. The complexity
of chess is the motivator for me. once again this is a personal
preference.

opponents. With backgammon, I find interesting nuances all the time,
and it leads me into a deeper understanding of what makes the game
"tick."

And probably everyone in these chess newsgroups will say the
exact same thing about a game of Chess.

Only a small number of people have
demonstrated an ability to do this - that is the reality. And so a
claim about "chasing dreams" is simply a statement of fact.

is this chasing dreams? or is it enjoyment of the challenge.
Yes chess is very challenging but that is what is so attractive
about it compared to other games. You personally dont seem
to enjoy difficult challenges. Once again this says something
about your character.