25th

We already have chessboxing for this sort of thing

A poker/chess tournament could be an alternative for those that don't want to risk a broken nose or concussion.

What about curling? That even starts with the same letter as chess!

Half of Hollywood isn't interested in curling like they are in poker. And there have been many netwok TV shows showcasing poker but few if any involve curling.

It is all about poker being long term. I can play Magnus in 10,000 Chess matches and he would beat me in all 10,000. I can play Fedor Holz in a 100bb sng and I would have probably about a 35% chance of winning. However if I played Fedor in 10,000 of those sngs, there is 0% chance I would leave the winner.

Come to. thnk of it, a poker/chess tournament might attract some of the millions of worldwide chess players into poker thus infusing the poker economy with a good deal of money.

Pretty sure chess/poker tournament has been done before and it was promoted by Jen Shahade I think.

* Experts believe that perfect chess is a draw. But there is a tiny chance it is a win for white and a miniscule chance its a win for black.

That statement is very flawed. If I play white and I play perfect how is there any chance that black could win? Maybe if I die of a heart attack while at the chess board. If both players play perfect the result will always be the same. Since nothing changes from game to game and to play perfect the moves will always be the best move at the time then the moves from each player will always be the same and so will the result.

The statement is not flawed. Its just one simple theorem form game theory. Chess is type of game where either one of players can always for a win or its a force draw with perfect play.
For example in tic-tac-toe what ever your fist move, there is a way for other player to force a draw every time. If take rock paper scissors game and change rules in such way that one player goes fist then the other player can always force a win by picking perfectly.

Similarly in chess could be the type of game where for every opening white plays black can play contra strategy that can force a win for black. As David Sklansky said chess is probably not that kind of gam, but it might be, we dont know.

With the use Computers for study in Chess players have so much pattern Recognition at the highest level they have so many combinations memorized for openings and positions along with counters to opponents openings, theres no comparison...
Way more combinations in chess than NL Hands.

Half of Hollywood is interested in poker? That's interesting, didn't know that.

If you don't like curling, how about a different olympic winter sport like luge or biathlon?

Black gets to act last which, as we know from poker, is a huge advantage.

Yeah, probably in the classical chess time frame of around 2 hours+ but Carlsen does lose in lower time limit games and even occasionally blunders in those matches.

When I first started to play chess, I played against the computer. After a while I put the setting on the10 level, the most difficult. I actually won about 1 in 50 times on the computer's 10 level.

Since chess has billions of combinations after the first 4 moves, I would think a slightly above average player could beat Carlsen (in a 15 minute or less game) simply by lucking into the perfect move a few times in a row. I'd be willing to bet 200 dollars I could beat Carlsen in a 15 minute or less game at least once every 300 games.

15 minutes is still too much time for grandmasters. While you're thinking about what move you should play that actually gives them a bigger advantage because they just would be able to calculate the position much faster than you.

depending on your elo for chess below if its below like 2000. In order to have any sort of chance you'd have to get some extreme sort of time odds think like gms having 30 sec to your 15 min. or piece odds them playing without a queen or bishops to have a chance against a gm and even then you wouldn't necessarily be winning by you skill most likely the gm has to blunder for you to even have a slight chance.

There's different chess variations that involve luck/chance such as dice chess or card chess where they you are only able to move the piece that's on the dice or piece that's given the card value.

[QUOTE=Haizemberg93;57628845]The statement is not flawed. Its just one simple theorem form game theory. Chess is type of game where either one of players can always for a win or its a force draw with perfect play.
For example in tic-tac-toe what ever your fist move, there is a way for other player to force a draw every time. If take rock paper scissors game and change rules in such way that one player goes fist then the other player can always force a win by picking perfectly.

But if my play allows black to win than I have not made the perfect move when it is my turn to play. Perfect play may end in a draw every time but since having the first move in chess is an advantage in order for black to win I must make a mistake. If playing last is an advantage than Black must win every time if neither player makes a mistake and makes the best move possible every time they make a move. The result must always be the same, it can never be different. There is no element of randomness in chess.

Just like in Tic-tac-toe the outcome is always the same if both players make the best moves. It does not matter if black always wins, or white always wins or they always draw. It has to be the same result every time if we both play perfectly. That is why the statement is so flawed. He is saying if we play both play perfectly white wins sometimes and black wins sometimes. playing perfectly in any chess position means I will always make the move that gives me the best chance to win. Then he makes the move to give him the best chance to win and so forth and so on. There will only be one move in each position that will by definition be the best move. It will never vary. The best first move in a game of chess will always be the same move and his response will always be the same response. If it ever varies than they did not make the best move. If it is the best move at 1:00 in the afternoon it will also be the best move at 4 and at 7.

He didn't mean probability in that sense.
He meant that chess is probably theoretical draw, because majority of engine games end up in a draw, so you can extrapolate that the prefect game is most likely a draw.

There is absolutely 0 chance chess is a forced win for either side.

prove it

There can be more than one move in a position that are equally good and superior to any other moves.

[QUOTE=tomshooter;57629145] Meh, still this is just useless theorizing. To me it's a useless way to get a good grasp on the game. It's too simplistic.

There are way better ways to get an understanding of the game with a complexity far beyond the majority of human beings, one of the best for beginners is to dedicate a dynamic number to each piece in the given position.

Most people know in general terms a pawn is 1, knight and bishop is 3 etc... Yet once you realize a center pawn is worth 1,4 and why, a knight on the rim is only worth for example 2,2 in a certain position, you will have a far better grasp of how to judge a position, even in move 1 and 2.

As is of course proven by engines, who are let's not forget, only programmed by humans, many humans. Which would lead to the famous 'illusion of AI'-realization.

In conclusion, I think you've watched too much TV.

[QUOTE=SizzlerFTW;57629859] Obviously. But my original post that you were criticizing was only about the general concept of whether there can be "luck" in games with perfect information. Nothing else.

You are wrong. As was said previously, the most likely is that the game is a forced draw. However, there's some potential that white has a forced win from move 1. I am very comfortable saying that it will never be shown that black has a forced win from move 1.

The one thing we can all be certain of: we'll never have proof in our lifetimes.

[QUOTE=SizzlerFTW;57629859] Those values are based on that useless theorizing.

I don't even have a TV.

There is always an element of luck if an opponent has a non zero chance of a blunder.