no you're absolutely right some people have a ultra-high randomness factor but thats not always bad like me in bullet
Chess is random for most people?
Sort:
Scoring 50% against your own rating is exactly what's supposed to happen.
Only difference: as rating go higher, draws and losses become fewer, an draws increase.
brucester83 wrote:
For example, when i look at peoples historys under rating 1200, they seem to have 50/50 wins and losses against people of their own rating.
lol
fair enough, lol
so if i beat someone rated higher than me, its just luck
if i beat someone lower than me, there is no glory
and if i beat someone equal to me, it would have been quicker playing heads or tails :P
whats the point :p
What in the world are you talking about?
Do you think that when GMs play each other they always know what the hell's going on? They may try to act like it (after all, that's no doubt part of the game), but they're all confused and uncertain too. So is anybody playing anybody else of roughly the same strength.
The only difference is, the number of them is much, much smaller than the number of the likes of us.
I think you can say that everyone who plays chess often has to make educated guesses.
The better you are, the more educated your guesses are :)
That's one of the major appealing aspects of chess for me. You try to do the best you can with what you know, and there's always something you can learn because there's always something you could have done better.
But the better your opponent is, the more often your educated guesses turn out to be wrong. 
Exactly! 
AndyClifton wrote:
What in the world are you talking about?
Do you think that when GMs play each other they always know what the hell's going on? They may try to act like it (after all, that's no doubt part of the game), but they're all confused and uncertain too. So is anybody playing anybody else of roughly the same strength.
The only difference is, the number of them is much, much smaller than the number of the likes of us.
The randomness factor is much greater at lower levels, and almost none at high levels.
But we already discussed about this, so let's agree to disagree :)
well, when you watch little kids play, their skill is often very low. The winner is simply the kid who pays more attention. When both kids don't pay attention, the outcome is pure random.
waffllemaster wrote:
I think you can say that everyone who plays chess often has to make educated guesses.
The better you are, the more educated your guesses are :)
That's one of the major appealing aspects of chess for me. You try to do the best you can with what you know, and there's always something you can learn because there's always something you could have done better.
Yep, Rybka and Houdini do not always Draw, and they are approximately 600 points higher in rating than the Strongest Grandmaster ( in Classical Chess ).
Chess is ( yet ) not solved... However though, I remember myself an Article that I read on chess.com:
* Cannot find Article *
Educated guesses as wafflemaster says in his first post.
I think you could see chess as a topic and a game of chess as a discussion between the players,
both with their own limited knowledge.
Randomness isn't what I would use to describe it
Perhaps two people, both rated 2500 would beat each other 50/50.
brucester83 wrote:
Hello,
I have been playing chess for a little while now and it seems to me that for most people that dont devote themselves to the study of the game, the outcome is random.
some truth in that, i suppose
For example, when i look at peoples historys under rating 1200, they seem to have 50/50 wins and losses against people of their own rating. When i beat someone, the i lose a rematch, then win another rematch.
Is the reason for this because of the complexity of chess, and if you are not an expert, you cant possibly know the future of certain moves therefore making the outcome fo games the same as playing heads or tails. I can beat beginners using a few cheap tricks that i learned off google, but when i play people that dont fall for well known traps, our analysis of each move is the same and the outcome is based on chance, not skill.
Re: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle .... lol
Am i just wrong about this? too much quantum mechanics, that's all.
Its hard to explain what i'm getting at :P Its like, without grandmaster knowledge or experience, each move made by amateurs has an unkown result, whether beneficial or detrimental due to the inability to know the results of said move making chess a game of heads and tails for most people.
a little study goes a long way.
Brucester-
As other's have said, there's a lot of grey area between being able to predict exactly what will happen next, and moving randomly. For example, when white plays knight to F3 in the opening, it's not random. It's also not because he sees 10 moves down the line and knows that that exact move is going to prove to be critical in the future. It's because he figures that's a better spot for it than E2 or H3, and because he figures it'll probably come in handy at some point later in the game.
1.Nh3 is capable of producing a quick mate though!
1.Nh3 e6 2.Nf4 Ne7 3.Nh5 g6 4.Nf6 mate
But 1 Nf3 e6 2 Ne5 Ne7 3 Ng4 g6 4 Nf6 mate also works
Bartleby73 wrote:
well, when you watch little kids play, their skill is often very low. The winner is simply the kid who pays more attention. When both kids don't pay attention, the outcome is pure random.
for some reason this made me smile.
Hello,
I have been playing chess for a little while now and it seems to me that for most people that dont devote themselves to the study of the game, the outcome is random.
For example, when i look at peoples historys under rating 1200, they seem to have 50/50 wins and losses against people of their own rating. When i beat someone, the i lose a rematch, then win another rematch.
Is the reason for this because of the complexity of chess, and if you are not an expert, you cant possibly know the future of certain moves therefore making the outcome fo games the same as playing heads or tails. I can beat beginners using a few cheap tricks that i learned off google, but when i play people that dont fall for well known traps, our analysis of each move is the same and the outcome is based on chance, not skill.
Am i just wrong about this?
Its hard to explain what i'm getting at :P Its like, without grandmaster knowledge or experience, each move made by amateurs has an unkown result, whether beneficial or detrimental due to the inability to know the results of said move making chess a game of heads and tails for most people.