Chess Gambling?

[DanielM]

There is a classic argument as to why there are more professional poker players then professional chess players.

On any given night, a sucker can beat a top poker player but that won’t happen in chess. That false sense of confidence keeps the poker suckers coming back, and the quality poker player's profits coming.

Does anyone have ideas of how to introduce randomness into chess so the suckers keep coming back? The trick is to do this without it being too gimmicky.

[Nichlemn]

Captures have a 50% chance of failing?

[pzhon]

The main problem is that many strong chess players prefer winning every game instead of winning money, a terrible mistake for a hustler. If they simply lost 1/3 of the time, they could play for much higher stakes.

If you don't want to distort the game with a time constraint or a handicap, try this: At moves 10 and 20, there is a 1/4 chance that the players have to switch sides.

[WhiteKnight]

Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but you might be able to even out the playing field by giving the weaker player more time and fiddling with the odds so that he wins more than he stands to lose.

[asterion]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a classic argument as to why there are more professional poker players then professional chess players.

On any given night, a sucker can beat a top poker player but that won’t happen in chess. That false sense of confidence keeps the poker suckers coming back, and the quality poker player's profits coming.

Does anyone have ideas of how to introduce randomness into chess so the suckers keep coming back? The trick is to do this without it being too gimmicky.

[/ QUOTE ]Many chess variants have been invented. There's Fischer random chess, there's transcendental chess (like Fischer but without the plane of symmetry), and some rather bizarre rules variants like atomic chess.

[DanielM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a classic argument as to why there are more professional poker players then professional chess players.

On any given night, a sucker can beat a top poker player but that won’t happen in chess. That false sense of confidence keeps the poker suckers coming back, and the quality poker player's profits coming.

Does anyone have ideas of how to introduce randomness into chess so the suckers keep coming back? The trick is to do this without it being too gimmicky.

[/ QUOTE ]Many chess variants have been invented. There's Fischer random chess, there's transcendental chess (like Fischer but without the plane of symmetry), and some rather bizarre rules variants like atomic chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for filling us in. I checked the rules for these games at wikipedia.org. Transcendental chess would give one side an unfair advantage on an individual game, but that washes out over time.

A top player could make good $$ over time doing this, but the other poster has an excellent point. Top chess players want to win every game. Nice to know that there is a group of people out there who make poker players seem modest.

[SheetWise]

If you don't play chess at tournament level, or don't consider yourself a contender -- I'd like to share a short story of how I learned to play, and how I taught my daughters. It will teach you a lot about handicapping.

When I left home (Chicago) with a friend, I met a couple of chess enthusiasts in Fresno, CA. They were so disappointed in our game that they decided to teach us. How that process ended up was with one person wearing headphones (the old gel kind), playing the music of their choice, while playing a game against the other three. We did this on a rotating basis -- where the three against one could openly discuss strategy. When you alone were the one under the phones, you were well aware that a single slip would end in mate. It was a fascinating and rapid way to learn the dynamics of the game. My two daughters were winning junior high and high school championships while in kindergarden and first grade by playing as teams (and with the help of chessmaster).

If you play with your friends in this type of asymetrical game -- you'll develop a nonscientific sense of their skill which is very similar to poker play. When you've played against them both as a team and alone -- you will know a lot about them.

When you reach that point -- friends can set their own odds with comfort.

[WhiteKnight]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't play chess at tournament level, or don't consider yourself a contender -- I'd like to share a short story of how I learned to play, and how I taught my daughters. It will teach you a lot about handicapping.

When I left home (Chicago) with a friend, I met a couple of chess enthusiasts in Fresno, CA. They were so disappointed in our game that they decided to teach us. How that process ended up was with one person wearing headphones (the old gel kind), playing the music of their choice, while playing a game against the other three. We did this on a rotating basis -- where the three against one could openly discuss strategy. When you alone were the one under the phones, you were well aware that a single slip would end in mate. It was a fascinating and rapid way to learn the dynamics of the game. My two daughters were winning junior high and high school championships while in kindergarden and first grade by playing as teams (and with the help of chessmaster).

If you play with your friends in this type of asymetrical game -- you'll develop a nonscientific sense of their skill which is very similar to poker play. When you've played against them both as a team and alone -- you will know a lot about them.

When you reach that point -- friends can set their own odds with comfort.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really like this post, thanks for sharing.