CHANCE IN CHESS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21314, 15 October 1932, Page 15

CHANCE IN CHESS

Sir.—You reported in your issue of October 12 an instance in which a learned magistrate mentioned that chess is a game of skill alone, and possibly the only one of that description. If any attention at all is to be paid to accuracy, then this is too absolute to bear investigation. The misconception is a common one, probably due to the fact that only a small minority ever investigates the principles on which that game does depend. Admittedly, it is a game of skill in the hands of players up to a certain standard; but with none, not even Alckine, is chance eliminated. Every player of experience knows that in tho crisis of a game his choice of the next move is often a sheer gamble; sometimes he plays boldly and fails; sometimes he holds fast to prudence, and is rewarded by disaster. In fact, many of the brilliancies are purely successful gambles. Of such moments of crisis, Capablanca remarks that temperament alono decides one's course. Alekino and Bogol'jubov, in playing for the world's championship. were applauded for the chances they took. Spielmann says that in certain tournaments he did well, while in others he did badly against the same opponents, oven though in his opinion he was playing equally well. Pillsbury remarked that chess and draughts are both unfathomable, and therefore subject to chance. Lasker claims that chess makes tho strongest appeal to the intellect; but does not reject chance. Edgar Allan Pop has written a reasoned comparison of chess and draughts, and considers that the element of speculation heavily favours tho former. When a player commences a game of chess he embarks on a sea of hazard; only in a series of games is the better player practically certain to win; but this is true also of poker, tho successfill practice of which depends upon the same considerations of probability as tho operations of an insurance company. Probably, if poor poker players could bo induced to believe that they arc facing ultimately certain annihilation, they would renounce the game, instead of continuing in the belief that all will be well when their luck turns—a belief, by the way, in which the law encourages them, by declaring tho game to bo one of chance. Football and tennis over a period of 90 minutes are much less subject to chance than chess, because with thnse games an unfortunato incident of chance may be offset the next moment, while in chess its pernicious effect endures to the end. Perhaps one with more than human ability could eliminate chance from chess; but who can make the assertion ? The Bishop.: