Is Chess Gambling?

[robk]

Winning in chess at its highest level (Grandmasters) is about taking RISKS in
order to achieve a winning position or increasing your chances for winning.

Late to the party but I could not resist this quote.

Anyone who takes risks in a game of chess, especially at the grandmaster level, will not be a grandmaster very long, and probably did not get there by taking risks.

Now you may mean something different that I do by risks. What I would call a risk in chess is making a move that your opponent can counter (though perhaps not easily) in the hope that they will miss the best response. Or maybe it is the unwise sacrifice of a pawn or (horrors) a piece with the chance that maybe it will help somewhere down the road. This might work at the 1200 level or even the 1800 level but anyone that has achieved grandmaster status, (2600 and above) will not miss the best response.

Winning at chess does not involve taking risks but playing to limit your opponents response options until eventually they cannot prevent you from taking a piece or pawn, or forcing checkmate.

What makes chess interesting is that it is not always obvious what is the best way to limit your opponents options. Google the words "the most amazing move ever in a chess game" for Stefan Levitsky vs Frank James Marshall. To end the game, Marshall (black) sacrifices his queen in three different ways, but no matter how the queen is taken, it leads to material superiority for Marshall and an easy win. And refusing the sacrifice leads to checkmate.

Anyway, at the highest level winning does not depend on risk, but rather on sound strategy.

In Christ,
rob k

 

[qvvvv]

 

[GosuChazzzz]

Its not even about if it's a tournament or not, Chess has historically been a game more geared toward strategy. It's a thinking man's game and the victor is awarded the pride and knowledge of having quicker wit rather than a larger bank account.

 

[QR1]

Hi everyone, I was just curious....Would God consider playing Chess gambling? My logic would say "No" and I will tell you why (IMHO) it's not. Gambling is when you bet money on the results of an event or to put in money to win in a tournament. So, to me... Horse Racing, Poker, dice, and dare I say.... Bingo at the local Church auxillary is considered Gambling. But chess? Now, I have never played in a Chess Tournament... I plan to some day, but I know that there is an entrance fee. The majority of fees goes to buying new chess sets, administration fees and just helping the club grow...advertisement or whatever. I am guessing a small portion actually goes to the winner/winners of the tournament; whether that be in cash or trophies. Keep in mind, I am refering to an amateur tourney. So, what do you think? All opinions are welcome, especially from any clergy out there Thanks...Pure

Chess isn't gambling in part because there is no chance involved. Unlike Monopoly or games where things get shuffled or rolled, every move is a conscious decision by a human being. It is skill. To be gambling there must be chance, luck.

 

[spacefreak]

not if you don't play for money

 

[pgp_protector]

I play loads of card games as a card manipulator and magitian, plus i play loads of chess and other games, but no money is placed on the table, so its not gambling as I am "Gambling" with nothing

Some gambling has luck elements but a lot of it is skill, epseshally the likes of cards, however as said and the main topic, Chess is all skill and no luck, and is impossible to fix.

Ever do a few good card tricks, then ask if they want to play cards
(After I've done that, they don't seem to want to play cards with me )

 

[Lilly Owl]

Is Chess Gambling?

No.

And unless players bet on the outcome of the game or during, through mode of play, it's not gambling.

 

[Breckmin]

Anyway, at the highest level winning does not depend on risk, but rather on sound strategy.

If your opponent plays "perfectly" or positionally counters your every move...then the game will end in a "draw."

In chess strategy that is above USCF 2000 (expert, master, NM, WGM, FM, IM or GM) often a player will make moves (exchange certain pieces for different pieces) to do what is called "create imbalances."

To create imbalances is very risky but because it complicates the game...it is an advantage for the stronger player. When I say "exchange certain pieces" this could be trading a Knight and a Bishop for a Rook and a Pawn OR trading a bishop and two pawns for a rook (or even a Knight for a bishop) - anything that takes away from a symmetrical set of material (force). A Queen traded for two Rooks in an attacking position could be another example.

 

[Breckmin]

Now you may mean something different that I do by risks.

To create imbalances at the Grandmaster level is definitely a risky thing to do...unless you know you have a forced win.

Often this would be a "weak move" to play against a 2900 rated computer program but it might actually "work" against a GM who has weaknesses that such imbalances could give you winning chances.

In Grandmaster chess we know that certain openings that are symmetrical often lead to draws. Often this is because of the pawn structure which will result from the opening. If you want to win you sometimes need to play an opening that will lead to more complications rather than symmetrical pieces and pawn structures.

YES... winning against players of equal strength is often about taking risks. We see this in the art of sacrifices that against a computer would be disastrous but against a "human" often WIN!

 

[leopoldcarpler]

Entering a tournament for a small fee with a more substantial prize for the winner is placing a wager on your performance. In that sense, it is a gamble. However, we have to think of why gambling is wrong and whether this instance of gambling is also immoral.

If there were no prize awarded to the winner, but the tournament still charged an entrance fee, would you still play? In other words, do you consider the entrance fee worthwhile compensation for the enjoyment you will get from playing? If so, then the gambling aspect of the tournament is secondary. Also, since the fee is a flat 'buy-in' with no opportunity to increase the wager, there is no way that people will lose everything they own to the contest.

I believe that the reason that gambling is or should be considered immoral is because it encourages people to risk their entire livelihood on contests based in chance. Gambling is not an honest profession. Playing chicken with cars on the freeway is wrong for the same reasons that gambling is wrong.

 

[Jupiter Drops]

No, it's not gambling unless you start betting to see who'd win.

Chess is a game of strategy. Brain vs. brain.

 

[gwin7]

don't be afraid so much. Stop being worried or sin conscious. Jesus is lord. Playing a fun game is not going to ruin your life haha.

 

[REPHAIAHPEDAHEL]

no, chess is not gambling.