Disclaimer: Please do not take this piece too literally. Many have fallen into such a hole and have criticized this article for providing a poor comparison. We can compare chess with anything; likewise, we can compare Counter-Strike with everything. If you truly believe that you can compare egg tossing with Counter-Strike as well as I can provide a contrast between Counter-Strike and chess, and that you can show just as strong a correlation, as ranged of an extrapolation, and as profound of a rationale, then please do so at your own discretion.

Welcome to my third installment of this rather peculiar series. This article is way overdue partially because of my own immediate commitments with my own business and studies, but also because I put myself into a trap to discuss a topic that is far more intricate than I would’ve thought it to be.

To be quite honest, I’m rather amazed at the number of people who actually read these article and take what they offer to their game play. I must give credit to jStar from devastation for constantly bombarding me with questions and offering his take on things, which helped me develop this installment.

Now, without further ado…

It is imperative for me to reiterate the purpose of this series before continuing with the rather complicated and intricate topic that I am about to introduce. First and foremost, this series is not intended to teach anyone about how to play the game of Counter-Strike. In fact, it does not intend to teach at all, but simply correlate a process of deep analytical thinking that has often been neglected by those who play the game. All in all, this series is a reminder that the game of Counter-Strike is not really as easy as we think it is. With that set aside, it is time for my fellow readers to take a seat and relax as I explain the power of what chess players often refer to as 'brute force': Probability.

Probability is an art; it does not provide answers, but rather provides a map that we can use to decide the route we are to take. Like other aesthetics, it is opinionated upon as well as appreciated subjectively, and in relation to chess, it is a style of play.

Gary Kasparov, undoubtly the greatest chess player of all time, was challenged in 1996 by IBM and their chess machine known as the 'Deep Blue'. Kasparov was able to defeat the Deep Blue under standard tournament rules and maintained the title of the best player in the world. IBM refined their machine and challenged Kasparov once again in 1997, this time defeating him in six games (3.5 - 2.5).

How is it possible for a seemingly human activity, requiring intelligence and thought and even psychology, to be dominated by a computer?

Probability.