Is chess the Only 100% skill based game?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
DrCheckevertim wrote:
Chess isn't 100% skill, probably nothing is.
Actually, while Chess isn't the only game that is, I believe, to be 100% skill based, here is why I feel that it is skill based. There are no random elements of luck, both players start with exactly the same amount and type of material, and it all starts in the same positions. The only element of luck that there really is, winds up being who is white and who is black. Outside of that, every possible move is the same at the start. There are no dice to roll, nothing.
And Someone brought up the luck of a correct move. You are right...one could call that luck...but the fact is, there was no crit, no percentage chance he would pick it. I call that inexperience. Being unaware of the board is what I would call it. Not Luck. Far as I am concerned, it's a game of pure skill. Only the differences in skill determine who wins and who loses. Mistakes, blunders, or great plays are all things that come with planning, or lack thereof.
Mountain/rock climbing is 100% skill.
Chess has small element of luck.
chess is not 100% skill. If you think chess is 100% skill then chess has been solved like checkers/draughts
netzach wrote:
Mountain/rock climbing is 100% skill.
Chess has small element of luck.
So when an eagle suffers a heart attack mid flight and crashes into the back of your head, or a mountain goat gets territorial and head butts you off the face of a cliff that's totally 100% skill on your part?
It is 100% skill-based, but in practice there is an element of luck or chance.
Dupliacate bridge is pure skill. The only card game I'm aware of that is. Chess on the other hand has an element of luck. Haven't you ever been in a situation where by luck, not design' you find one of your pieces is in a certain position which you can take advantage of?
Jan 15, 2014
0
#49
There is no such thing as a 100% skill based game. Even in chess given a very strong field where there are 8 players who only make 1 blunder each in total, and player A is the opponent when B-H make their blunders and so A wins 6 and blunders 1, is that not "lucky"?
waffllemaster wrote:
netzach wrote:
Mountain/rock climbing is 100% skill.
Chess has small element of luck.
So when an eagle suffers a heart attack mid flight and crashes into the back of your head, or a mountain goat gets territorial and head butts you off the face of a cliff that's totally 100% skill on your part?
Or even if the bit of rock that is helping to support you gives way, that is luck.
In chess, the luck is created by the imperfect nature of your opponent's thinking process. Why did he miss the critical tactic that enabled you to win the game? On a different day he might (or would) not have missed it. Yet he is the same player with the same level of skill - unless you consider skill to be fluctuating on a short time scale and in an apparently random way, which is also a valid viewpoint.
Lionheart-USA wrote:
I disagree, chess is indeed 100% skill. You have complete control over everything that happens in the game. How is there any element of luck in it?
Also, chess is solvable, even though it hasnt been solved yet. True, the number of possible moves is astronomical... so astronomical, in fact, that its possible we might NEVER solve it... but the number of possible moves (before someone gains a decisive advantage, or a true draw is reached) is still finite.
By your argument, you are saying that there is an element of luck in the game until it becomes solved, then the game becomes 100% skill. The nature of the game itself doesnt change just because its been solved.
The game itself involves no luck. But when humans play it there is luck, at least as far as results. For example by learning an opening more in depth, you may end up in a technically difficult endgame and lose on time. If you had stayed more ignorant and played a sideline, your opponent may have misevaluated and decide on a faulty plan allowing you to win in the middlegame.
Having played over some Botvinnik games a week earlier you came across an opening variation that interested you. You got a chance to try it your next round and won.
Because it was a swiss tourney it ended up in your advantage to lose the first round, and you end up tied in the last round. Thy guy you're tied with gets the easier pairing, and you get two whites in a row because your opponent had had too many whites which wouldn't have happened if John Doe hadn't gotten a flat and made it to the tournament in the first place.
During the game your opponent's move order triggers a pattern recognition and alerts you to a threat you wouldn't have noticed if the move order had been reversed. Unfortunately your opponent had a lot of experience in your pet variation and was able to navigate the complications without using much time on his clock.
etc.
I'm pretty sure that "I win" from the movie "big daddy" is really the only 100% skill based game.
Street Fighter is 100% skill.
Long Range Competitive Shooting (1000m Silhouette). That's a game of the utmost skill... You have to compensate for heat, humidity, wind (which changes in different directions over 1000m) and even the Coriolis Effect (the rotation of the earth affects the path of the bullet at such long ranges). Not to mention your choice of bullet loads, twist rate and material of the barrel, heartbeat and breathing control, etc... The list goes on. I'd say that is THE ultimate game of skill.
9 men morris
yes
Chess is 99% tactics (calculation) as the popular saying goes. No, chess is not 100% skill. Intuition is also used and even psychology in chess of all levels. And no game is 100% skills.
If chess was 100% skill, then since skill varies within any given person over any length of time, it's a matter of luck with two equally matched players.
Chess, however, is not 100% skill, as proven by the fact that two computers equally matched produce random results (another word for luck).
Why did computer A win this time over computer B?
Because computer A got 'lucky' by choosing strategy #783,989,977 against cumputer B's strategy #328,989,902. If computer B had chosen strategy #983,222,976 instead, it would have won.
A huge amount of chess is guessing the strength of your opponant. You look at their rating and guess, 'will he see what I'm trying to do? if he does, then no point in trying it because he could block, in which case if he sees it coming, he could take advantage of knowing where I'm headed.'
Example, in a tournament, you might try scholar's mate against a newer player, but wouldn't dream of trying it against someone who's a grandmaster.
So, guessing whether your opponant can see what you're going to do is quite a different 'skill' than just playing out strategies. If you've never played the guy, or simply don't know whether he's had his morning beer (or daily fight with his wife) then guessing his abilities is more luck than skill.
Chess, it seems to me, is an immoral game. Seriously, what are you hoping for? "i sure hope he is too stupid to see what I'm trying to do.'
In what other game do you hope the other guy is retarded?
[COMMENT DELETED]
I'd. Rather be lucky than good!