Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, I know what it means. Chess is not comparable to 40K. Yet people trot it out all the time in a snarky way. Hence, false equivalence.

There is a full spectrum of randomnesss between chess and GW's "roll MOAR dice all the time!"

The game could be made FAR less random without even getting CLOSE to being fully deterministic.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Former competitive chess player here. First turn advantage in chess is a myth, should not be taken for granted.

The evidence for white supremacy typically falls into 3 categories:

- Personal experience of Chess masters
- Aggregate games from various forums
- Computer simulations

While each category will demonstrate a bias towards white, each category has flaws. Books by chess masters are anecdotal and often controversial, aggregate game studies almost always fail to account for differences in relative skill level and assume the "better" player randomly selects between white and black, and computer simulations fail to account for outcome bias in playstyle (i.e. computers will play for a draw in situation where a human would play for a win.)

One could argue it's probable that white will win, based on historical outcomes, opinions, and computer performance.

One could also argue it's more likely black will win based on better statistical ranking of the black player, aversion to seeking a draw, and limitations to technology (i.e. computers still haven't solved chess.)

If you look at chess as a game of moving pieces on a board, sure, white has an advantage because it goes first. If you look at chess as a game where two people compete to achieve a certain outcome, and preparation / motivations / independence from previous trials matter, white has no advantage. If you don't believe the later, look at Teimour Radjabov.

Isn't competitive chess also played in matches of four games with players alternating between playing white and black?

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, I know what it means. Chess is not comparable to 40K. Yet people trot it out all the time in a snarky way. Hence, false equivalence.

There is a full spectrum of randomnesss between chess and GW's "roll MOAR dice all the time!"

The game could be made FAR less random without even getting CLOSE to being fully deterministic.

First, off course, they are comparable. Both are tactical games, and there is a spectrum of randomness between them. See, that IS already a viable comparison! Right there, and you even did it yourself! You compared them!
Second, if you accuse me of "false equivalence" you infere, that my argument wrongfully assumes properties to one of the two partners in a comparison because the other partner has this properties. I didn't do that!
If you want to show off how smart you are, by using tricksy technical terms from the rethorical arts, you have to use the correct ones. If you had accused me of commiting a sliding scale fallacy, you would have impressed me, a bit, because that is what I actually did, Although I did it very obviously on purpose, and in a sarcastic manner, to grind your gears and make a point.

Let me strip my argument of all the funny bits: The intellectual challenge of WH40k is to balance a complex set of probabilities to make superior bets to your opponent. If you don't enjoy that, because the complexity keeps falsifying your predictions, the mature decision would be to find a different ruleset, instead of sticking to a ruleset, that you clearly don't enjoy, and then complaining about the inevitable result.

What's your point again?

-removed by insaniak


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OK, thanks for the modstrike. You still don't understand the words you use.

Statistics made from a low sample size isn't statistics, it's anecdotal evidence. So the question really is, statistics, probability or anecdotal evidence. Let's rank order them probability > statistics > anecdotal evidence. Knowing probabilities doesn't mean expecting the most likely thing to happen, it means being optimally prepared for every outcome based on how it would improve or hinder you chance of winning the game. Statistics is only a glance at probability through a fogged lense, but it can sometimes be easier to do than doing the actual probabilistic calculation. Anecdotal evidence is like being in Plato's cave, unless you have played hundreds of games the dice and other complicating factors will most likely wildly throw off your ability to accurately estimate the probabilities in a game (the truth).

If your opponent will allow it, use a dice roller, I've heard GW dice are pretty atrocious. Believing in the unbeating heart of my army and using dice with my favourite colour works pretty well for me, you can also try praying to your god and/or waifu before important rolls, bathe the dice in your blood to forge a stronger bond etc. etc. If you just scoop up your dice when you get unlucky and move on, despite your opponent losing their face at your roll you'll have more fun games and you can shake the feeling of being cursed, focussing on the bad dice doesn't help and you never know when your luck will turn. Talk about bad dice after the game has been lost, nobody likes a sour-puss winning after whining for four turns in a row or surrendering a game just because of dice rolls despite the game not being decided but not quite going how you wanted it to.