| |
Main
Date: 05 Jul 2007 07:50:00
From: Zero
Subject: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
HI,
I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
the three games and also good at another as well.
Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
inactive).
Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.
Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
poker has more luck than skill.
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 21:39:14
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 30, 11:55 pm, EG <[email protected] > wrote:
> > That's a reflection of the short-term luck factor in poker. In poker
> > any reasonable player can win one single tournament, and even the best
> > players aren't that much better than the field. David Sklansky
> > estimates that the best tournament players have an EV of only about
> > double the buy-in. In chess, even a difference of 200 rating points
> > means that the better player will virtually always win. Put ten
> > grandmasters together, and you can't be sure that the 2740 will win
> > and not the 2680. But have a field of hundreds of players of greatly
> > varying abilities, and it will almost always sort closely by ratings -
> > you won't see a 1400 win a major open event ever.
>
> But all these professional players win all the time. I think they
> have much higher Expected Values than you give them credit for.
Many of the top pros enter literally dozens of events every year - you
have to view their wins and final tables in the light of how much they
are paying to enter events overall. Players like Bill Boyd and Stu
Ungar may have had a massive advantage back in their time, but in the
modern poker world no one has that great a record against the much
larger and stronger fields that are common today.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 20:55:52
From: EG
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
But all these professional players win all the time. I think they
have much higher Expected Values than you give them credit for.
On Jul 5, 6:36 pm, Iceman <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 5, 3:04 pm, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
>
> > Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > The best chess computers today are probably slightly better than the
> > > best human players (10 years ago the best computers and top humans
> > > were about at the same level), but it wouldn't be a total blowout.
>
> > That's not true. The best computer (Hydra) is substantially stronger
> > than the best humans. The best computers which run on
> > commercially-available hardware are "probably slightly better than the
> > best human players" but that's not the same thing.
>
> I left the computer world 10 years ago, and wasn't aware of Hydra. I
> figured it was inevitable that computers would eventually beat the
> best human players.
>
> > > But the best computer programs are only at the level of a strong
> > > amateur in bridge, a mediocre amateur in poker (except in heads-up
> > > limit holdem where the computers are pretty strong), and an advanced
> > > beginner in go.
>
> > The interesting thing about poker, though, is how well amateurs do
> > compared to professionals. While it's true that the best professionals
> > consistently do a lot better than the best amateurs, in poker you
> > consistently see tournaments won by a player of mediocre skills who
> > happened to get the best cards.
>
> That's a reflection of the short-term luck factor in poker. In poker
> any reasonable player can win one single tournament, and even the best
> players aren't that much better than the field. David Sklansky
> estimates that the best tournament players have an EV of only about
> double the buy-in. In chess, even a difference of 200 rating points
> means that the better player will virtually always win. Put ten
> grandmasters together, and you can't be sure that the 2740 will win
> and not the 2680. But have a field of hundreds of players of greatly
> varying abilities, and it will almost always sort closely by ratings -
> you won't see a 1400 win a major open event ever.
|
| |
Date: 17 Jul 2007 08:08:21
From:
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 6:44 pm, Richard <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 5, 1:34 pm, David Nicoson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I think the correlation between good poker players and good chess
> > players isn't anything deeper than to say st people are good at
> > games.
>
> I have to disagree with this one. As a chess player, I've seen plenty
> of strong players at tourneys who are clearly below average
> intelligence. None of them are grandmasters, but they're strong
> amateurs or even low level masters.
>
I have a friend who plays a lot of backgammon and poker (both mostly
live play), and his comparison of the two games is this: He likes the
backgammon 'scene' because there are so many extremely bright people
involved. He is referring to the people you would meet at a major
tournament, not necessarily all the riff-raff you find on the
Internet.
With poker in many ways he detests the game because of all of the
really stupid people you have to deal with, who have nothing more to
their game than all that aggressive posturing that goes with live
poker play. And the dumber they are, the more aggressive and boorish
they become.
He continues to play poker because 'that's where the money is', and
supplements a comfortable living with live money games. But if money
is not the object, he'd much rather hang out with backgammon players
than poker players. Actually he says he'd rather hang out with most
ANYONE than the kind of people you meet in live poker rooms.
--
Gregg C.
|
| |
Date: 17 Jul 2007 14:17:57
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 16, 10:34 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:03:05 -0000, Will in New Haven
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Jul 16, 3:35 pm, Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Jul 16, 3:15 pm, Will in New Haven
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > You also have to realize that NLHE tournaments are not all of poker.
> >> > While very important right now, NLHE and tournaments were historically
> >> > sideshows. When poker was not all that popular, there were still many
> >> > people grinding out a respectable amount of money out of limit games
> >> > of holdem, stud and and, at one time, lowball and draw. A bad player's
> >> > chances in any of those other variations is lower than it is in NLHE,
>
> >> In NLHE tournaments, bad players don't do that badly, unless you're
> >> talking deep money, slow structure events.
>
> >Really bad players don't do that badly in quick events. Many people
> >consider Moneymaker and some others bad players but they are so much
> >better than the bad players you want to see at a cash table that it is
> >silly to call them bad. The sneering wannabes that call them bad are
> >not generally anything but fans who resent not seeing a name player
> >winning.
>
> Most of the 'no-names' you see at the events are generally hardcore
> online players. All the 23-and-under crowd pretty much.
>
Online players play a great many hands. This will either break them or
teach them.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> NLHE capped buy-in cash games do reduce the skill factor somewhat, but
> >> as long as it's a 100-150 BB cap, the bad players will still do worse
> >> on average than in most limit games. Draw and stud-8 might be
> >> exceptions. A 40-50 BB cap makes the luck factor high. But limit
> >> holdem and stud a bad player can win as much as 30-40% of his sessions
> >> (and even the best players in mid-limits will generally only win
> >> 60-70% of the time).
>
> >> In deep money NLHE cash games, the bad players will do much worse than
> >> in any limit game.
>
> >Bad players who buy in deep are going to get killed. As a prominant
> >poster has argued, mediocre or even bad players can survive and feel
> >good about themselves by buying in shallow.
>
> >> > although the number of weaker players willing to play NLHE makes it
> >> > the "caddilac of poker."
>
> >> Well, that was definitely true in 2003, and is still pretty much true
> >> right now. But the ratio of good/mediocre/bad players keeps becoming
> >> less and less favorable.
>
> >It is not getting less favorable nearly as quickly in most casino
> >venues as it is online. Part of it is bad players going broke. Part of
> >it is bad players becoming less bad. Many casino players don't play
> >often enough to go broke or learn anything, bless them. Numerous
> >infrequent players make for profitable games.
>
> Foxwoods attracts them, I'm sure. Or Mohegan Sun.
The Sun has not had poker in years but they are opening a room in
their new building when it is done. Foxwoods attracts many infrequent
players. The quality of play in a local bar tournament is better,
because the players are there every week and eventually some things
sink in, than it is at the smaller tournaments at Foxwoods. People who
play more often do learn. Some of them very slowly.
Will in New Haven
--
>
>
>
>
>
> >Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 16 Jul 2007 20:03:05
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 16, 3:35 pm, Iceman <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 16, 3:15 pm, Will in New Haven
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You also have to realize that NLHE tournaments are not all of poker.
> > While very important right now, NLHE and tournaments were historically
> > sideshows. When poker was not all that popular, there were still many
> > people grinding out a respectable amount of money out of limit games
> > of holdem, stud and and, at one time, lowball and draw. A bad player's
> > chances in any of those other variations is lower than it is in NLHE,
>
> In NLHE tournaments, bad players don't do that badly, unless you're
> talking deep money, slow structure events.
Really bad players don't do that badly in quick events. Many people
consider Moneymaker and some others bad players but they are so much
better than the bad players you want to see at a cash table that it is
silly to call them bad. The sneering wannabes that call them bad are
not generally anything but fans who resent not seeing a name player
winning.
>
> NLHE capped buy-in cash games do reduce the skill factor somewhat, but
> as long as it's a 100-150 BB cap, the bad players will still do worse
> on average than in most limit games. Draw and stud-8 might be
> exceptions. A 40-50 BB cap makes the luck factor high. But limit
> holdem and stud a bad player can win as much as 30-40% of his sessions
> (and even the best players in mid-limits will generally only win
> 60-70% of the time).
>
> In deep money NLHE cash games, the bad players will do much worse than
> in any limit game.
Bad players who buy in deep are going to get killed. As a prominant
poster has argued, mediocre or even bad players can survive and feel
good about themselves by buying in shallow.
>
> > although the number of weaker players willing to play NLHE makes it
> > the "caddilac of poker."
>
> Well, that was definitely true in 2003, and is still pretty much true
> right now. But the ratio of good/mediocre/bad players keeps becoming
> less and less favorable.
It is not getting less favorable nearly as quickly in most casino
venues as it is online. Part of it is bad players going broke. Part of
it is bad players becoming less bad. Many casino players don't play
often enough to go broke or learn anything, bless them. Numerous
infrequent players make for profitable games.
Will in New Haven
--
|
| | |
Date: 16 Jul 2007 22:34:53
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:03:05 -0000, Will in New Haven
<[email protected] > wrote:
>On Jul 16, 3:35 pm, Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 3:15 pm, Will in New Haven
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > You also have to realize that NLHE tournaments are not all of poker.
>> > While very important right now, NLHE and tournaments were historically
>> > sideshows. When poker was not all that popular, there were still many
>> > people grinding out a respectable amount of money out of limit games
>> > of holdem, stud and and, at one time, lowball and draw. A bad player's
>> > chances in any of those other variations is lower than it is in NLHE,
>>
>> In NLHE tournaments, bad players don't do that badly, unless you're
>> talking deep money, slow structure events.
>
>Really bad players don't do that badly in quick events. Many people
>consider Moneymaker and some others bad players but they are so much
>better than the bad players you want to see at a cash table that it is
>silly to call them bad. The sneering wannabes that call them bad are
>not generally anything but fans who resent not seeing a name player
>winning.
Most of the 'no-names' you see at the events are generally hardcore
online players. All the 23-and-under crowd pretty much.
>
>>
>> NLHE capped buy-in cash games do reduce the skill factor somewhat, but
>> as long as it's a 100-150 BB cap, the bad players will still do worse
>> on average than in most limit games. Draw and stud-8 might be
>> exceptions. A 40-50 BB cap makes the luck factor high. But limit
>> holdem and stud a bad player can win as much as 30-40% of his sessions
>> (and even the best players in mid-limits will generally only win
>> 60-70% of the time).
>
>>
>> In deep money NLHE cash games, the bad players will do much worse than
>> in any limit game.
>
>Bad players who buy in deep are going to get killed. As a prominant
>poster has argued, mediocre or even bad players can survive and feel
>good about themselves by buying in shallow.
>
>>
>> > although the number of weaker players willing to play NLHE makes it
>> > the "caddilac of poker."
>>
>> Well, that was definitely true in 2003, and is still pretty much true
>> right now. But the ratio of good/mediocre/bad players keeps becoming
>> less and less favorable.
>
>It is not getting less favorable nearly as quickly in most casino
>venues as it is online. Part of it is bad players going broke. Part of
>it is bad players becoming less bad. Many casino players don't play
>often enough to go broke or learn anything, bless them. Numerous
>infrequent players make for profitable games.
Foxwoods attracts them, I'm sure. Or Mohegan Sun.
>
>Will in New Haven
|
| |
Date: 16 Jul 2007 12:35:16
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 16, 3:15 pm, Will in New Haven
<[email protected] > wrote:
> You also have to realize that NLHE tournaments are not all of poker.
> While very important right now, NLHE and tournaments were historically
> sideshows. When poker was not all that popular, there were still many
> people grinding out a respectable amount of money out of limit games
> of holdem, stud and and, at one time, lowball and draw. A bad player's
> chances in any of those other variations is lower than it is in NLHE,
In NLHE tournaments, bad players don't do that badly, unless you're
talking deep money, slow structure events.
NLHE capped buy-in cash games do reduce the skill factor somewhat, but
as long as it's a 100-150 BB cap, the bad players will still do worse
on average than in most limit games. Draw and stud-8 might be
exceptions. A 40-50 BB cap makes the luck factor high. But limit
holdem and stud a bad player can win as much as 30-40% of his sessions
(and even the best players in mid-limits will generally only win
60-70% of the time).
In deep money NLHE cash games, the bad players will do much worse than
in any limit game.
> although the number of weaker players willing to play NLHE makes it
> the "caddilac of poker."
Well, that was definitely true in 2003, and is still pretty much true
right now. But the ratio of good/mediocre/bad players keeps becoming
less and less favorable.
|
| |
Date: 16 Jul 2007 19:15:54
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 16, 3:00 pm, bob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 1:01 am, Patrick Volk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > But if you look at the tournament records, the same people seem to
> > cash year to year (Greg Raymer took like 5th in an event at this WSOP,
> > Phil Ivey won the HORSE event for the second year in a row, Freddy
> > Deeb got a bracelet, and Mike Matusow cashed).
>
> Since it is just finishing up it is interesting to look at the final
> table of 9 for this years WSOP. How many of them are "name" players?
> Let's say this means they show up on the WPT database or have at least
> $10,000 in lifetime winnings in any WSOP or WSOP circuit event.
>
> Bob Koca
You also have to realize that NLHE tournaments are not all of poker.
While very important right now, NLHE and tournaments were historically
sideshows. When poker was not all that popular, there were still many
people grinding out a respectable amount of money out of limit games
of holdem, stud and and, at one time, lowball and draw. A bad player's
chances in any of those other variations is lower than it is in NLHE,
although the number of weaker players willing to play NLHE makes it
the "caddilac of poker."
Will in New Haven
--
|
| |
Date: 16 Jul 2007 12:00:33
From: bob
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 11, 1:01 am, Patrick Volk <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> But if you look at the tournament records, the same people seem to
> cash year to year (Greg Raymer took like 5th in an event at this WSOP,
> Phil Ivey won the HORSE event for the second year in a row, Freddy
> Deeb got a bracelet, and Mike Matusow cashed).
Since it is just finishing up it is interesting to look at the final
table of 9 for this years WSOP. How many of them are "name" players?
Let's say this means they show up on the WPT database or have at least
$10,000 in lifetime winnings in any WSOP or WSOP circuit event.
Bob Koca
|
| |
Date: 16 Jul 2007 11:52:13
From: bob
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 15, 11:29 pm, Iceman <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 14, 1:05 am, bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 13, 10:08 pm, Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > The "best theoretical strategy" is not known, even for heads-up
> > > holdem, but surely would depend a lot on how your opponent plays.
>
> > For heads-up holdem, basic game theory tells us that there is indeed
> > an optimal theoretical strategy. It doesn't depend on the opponent's play though.
> > You are mixing up the ideas of theoretical strategy and practical strategy.
>
> No, you're mixing up the difference between a generalized optimal
> strategy and the best exploitative strategy against a particular
> opponent.
You used the phrase "best theoretical strategy" and then said it
depends on how the opponent plays. Do you equate the meanings of "best
theoretical strategy" and "best exploitative strategy"?
I've always seen "best theorectial strategy" to mean the game
theoretical optimum strategy which assumes an optimal opponent.
I agree completely with the last two paragraphs you wrote about how
exploitative strategies can do better practically and existence of
optimal strategies so it seems we just disagree on nomenclature.
Bob Koca
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2007 20:29:05
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 14, 1:05 am, bob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 13, 10:08 pm, Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The "best theoretical strategy" is not known, even for heads-up
> > holdem, but surely would depend a lot on how your opponent plays.
>
> For heads-up holdem, basic game theory tells us that there is indeed
> an optimal theoretical strategy. It doesn't depend on the opponent's play though.
> You are mixing up the ideas of theoretical strategy and practical strategy.
No, you're mixing up the difference between a generalized optimal
strategy and the best exploitative strategy against a particular
opponent.
The optimal strategy could never be beaten in a heads-up match with
alternating buttons. But it wouldn't win nearly as much against a bad
player as an exploitative strategy that is designed to take advantage
of that bad player's specific mistakes.
Game theory tells us that there is an optimal strategy for certain
forms of poker, but not necessarily for others. Heads-up limit poker
with a limited number of bets per round would have a theoretical
solution - since it is a zero-sum two player game with a finite
decision tree.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2007 20:22:16
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 15, 11:18 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:36:37 -0700, bob <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Anyways it is an irrelevant calculation. By 75% hand in the article
> >it clearly meant a hand that gives a 75%
> >chance of winning an all-in. Not a hand that is one of the 75% bests
> >hands for you.
>
> I said 1 in 4 hands, and you disagreed. Also, I just quoted the
> numbers, and know that all hands aren't created equal ( For any given
> pocket pair, there are 6 ways to get it (.45%). For x-y suited, there
> are 4, (.30%). For x-y unsuited, there are 12 (.90%))
Only AA, KK, QQ, and JJ are above 75% all-in against a random hand.
In a heads-up freezeout against someone moving all-in every hand,
unless the money is extremely deep you can't wait for one of those
hands without your stack likely being very depleted by the time you
get one.
> The worst hand is AA vs. A-9 (PP covers the over card, and if the 9 is
> a suit of the ace it adds about 1%). Not PP vs. PP (PP v. PP needs
> only 1 card, while covered over card requires 2).
No - the worst situation heads-up all-in preflop is KK vs. K2 with the
2 in the same suit of one of the first player's kings.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Jul 2007 22:27:42
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:22:16 -0700, Iceman <[email protected] >
wrote:
>On Jul 15, 11:18 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:36:37 -0700, bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Anyways it is an irrelevant calculation. By 75% hand in the article
>> >it clearly meant a hand that gives a 75%
>> >chance of winning an all-in. Not a hand that is one of the 75% bests
>> >hands for you.
>>
>> I said 1 in 4 hands, and you disagreed. Also, I just quoted the
>> numbers, and know that all hands aren't created equal ( For any given
>> pocket pair, there are 6 ways to get it (.45%). For x-y suited, there
>> are 4, (.30%). For x-y unsuited, there are 12 (.90%))
>
>
>Only AA, KK, QQ, and JJ are above 75% all-in against a random hand.
>In a heads-up freezeout against someone moving all-in every hand,
>unless the money is extremely deep you can't wait for one of those
>hands without your stack likely being very depleted by the time you
>get one.
That's where the size of the blinds come in. No blinds, 75% then. If
you see the cards and no blinds, it's potentially 95.6% or something
like that.
>
>> The worst hand is AA vs. A-9 (PP covers the over card, and if the 9 is
>> a suit of the ace it adds about 1%). Not PP vs. PP (PP v. PP needs
>> only 1 card, while covered over card requires 2).
>
>
>No - the worst situation heads-up all-in preflop is KK vs. K2 with the
>2 in the same suit of one of the first player's kings.
Closer at least.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jul 2007 19:36:37
From: bob
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 14, 10:33 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Ok, the top 51 hands (there are 169) is 24% of the time.
> The top 42 is 20% of the time.
>
I don't see how you go from top 51 hands out of 169 gives 24%. Did
you do 51/(51+169) = .2318 and round?
That seems how you got the 20% figure as 42/(42+169) = .199. Also,
why not 42/169. Also why not worry about
if the cards are suited or not?
Anyways it is an irrelevant calculation. By 75% hand in the article
it clearly meant a hand that gives a 75%
chance of winning an all-in. Not a hand that is one of the 75% bests
hands for you.
>
> The calculator says 11%, and that's not the worst hand (the worst is
> 5.3%)
>
> AA against KK has a probability of 18%.
>
> And your poker calculator appears to be using Monte Carlo analysis, no
> pun intended (it says 13% on AA v. KK, but it's really 17%).
>
> http://wizardofodds.com/holdem/calculator/handstrength2/(it's quicker
> too)
Agree that you site is better. Mine never gives anything near 13%
though for AA vs KK though.
For the worst hand
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jul 2007 23:18:11
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:36:37 -0700, bob <[email protected] > wrote:
>On Jul 14, 10:33 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ok, the top 51 hands (there are 169) is 24% of the time.
>> The top 42 is 20% of the time.
>>
>
>
> I don't see how you go from top 51 hands out of 169 gives 24%. Did
>you do 51/(51+169) = .2318 and round?
>That seems how you got the 20% figure as 42/(42+169) = .199. Also,
>why not 42/169. Also why not worry about
>if the cards are suited or not?
>
> Anyways it is an irrelevant calculation. By 75% hand in the article
>it clearly meant a hand that gives a 75%
>chance of winning an all-in. Not a hand that is one of the 75% bests
>hands for you.
I said 1 in 4 hands, and you disagreed. Also, I just quoted the
numbers, and know that all hands aren't created equal ( For any given
pocket pair, there are 6 ways to get it (.45%). For x-y suited, there
are 4, (.30%). For x-y unsuited, there are 12 (.90%))
>
>
>>
>> The calculator says 11%, and that's not the worst hand (the worst is
>> 5.3%)
>>
>> AA against KK has a probability of 18%.
>>
>> And your poker calculator appears to be using Monte Carlo analysis, no
>> pun intended (it says 13% on AA v. KK, but it's really 17%).
>>
>> http://wizardofodds.com/holdem/calculator/handstrength2/(it's quicker
>> too)
>
> Agree that you site is better. Mine never gives anything near 13%
>though for AA vs KK though.
>For the worst hand
The worst hand is AA vs. A-9 (PP covers the over card, and if the 9 is
a suit of the ace it adds about 1%). Not PP vs. PP (PP v. PP needs
only 1 card, while covered over card requires 2).
|
| |
Date: 14 Jul 2007 20:34:21
From: Raccoon
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 14, 7:33 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected] > wrote:
> And the article qualifies further as making a match against an amateur
> a 25-point one. Why not a 1-point one?
Because a 1-point match isn't long enough for a superior player to
fully demonstrate his superior skill. A 1-point backgammon match is
too short for fair comparison to, say, a chess game with professional
time control. Similarly, if Phil Ivey and I were to play _one hand_
and one poker hand only for all the bles, I know what my chances in
that contest would be!
Frigo's article refers to one by Bill Robertie that appeared in Inside
Backgammon in 1992. That's where the 25-point match length comes from.
Robertie was attempting to quantify the complexity of various games:
Go, Chess, Scrabble, Poker, Backgammon, Draughts, Blackjack, Craps,
Lotteries, Roulette. He took chess as an example: take the best player
in the world; find someone who beats the best player in the world 25%
of the time; find someone else who beats that second player 25% of the
time; and so on until you reach the bottom of the barrel -- an
absolute beginner. The number of skill differentials between best in
the world and absolute beginner is what Robertie called a "Complexity
Number." The more skill differentials, the greater the Complexity
Number, the more complex the game. Robertie's list:
Go 40
Chess 14
Scrabble 10
Poker 10
Backgammon 8
Draughts 8
Blackjack 2
Craps 0.001
Lotteries 0.0000001
Roulette 0
Why a 25-point match? Because that's what Robertie thought would make
for a meaningful comparison to chess and other games. He explained:
"We can now apply this process to any game, although we may have to
give some thought as to what constitutes a meaningful contest. In
chess, a single tournament game of four to five hours seems
reasonable. In backgammon it would probably be a 25-point match, in
scrabble perhaps a best of five series, and so on." A 25-point
backgammon match should also take about 4 to 5 hours. See David
Montgomery in the rec.games.backgammon thread "Which is greater: luck
or skill" beginning Aug 29 1995.
In chess, I believe, a players with a 200 rating point advantage has
an expected score of 0.75. Similarly in backgammon, the player with a
200 point advantage rates to win 75% of the time -- in a long 25-point
match, that is, not a 1-point quickie.
> The article as well made mention of a professional
> environment, a 25-point match, while for poker,
> that lassitude isn't given.
Feel free to suggest some other format for a poker contest, lasting
4-5 hours, that you believe would be approximately comparable in the
amount of skill required by one professional game of chess, or one 25-
point backgammon match, or a game of Go.
|
| |
Date: 14 Jul 2007 07:07:07
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 14, 1:05 am, bob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 13, 10:08 pm, Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The "best theoretical strategy" is not known, even for heads-up
> > holdem, but surely would depend a lot on how your opponent plays.
>
> For heads-up holdem, basic game theory tells us that there is indeed
> an optimal
> theoretical strategy. It doesn't depend on the opponent's play though.
> You are
> mixing up the ideas of theoretical strategy and practical strategy. As
> backgammon example is
> suppose I have two checkers on my 3 point vs my opponent who has 2 on
> his ace point. The theoretically
> optimal cube play for me is to not double. Practically though it might
> be a double (if my opponent is so bad as
> to pass such positions).
That would be the backgammon equivalent of a bluff then?
Will in New Haven
--
"Have faith in the Yankees my son and remember the great Dimaggio."
Ernest Hemingway, THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA
>
> Bob Koca
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 22:05:46
From: bob
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 13, 10:08 pm, Iceman <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> The "best theoretical strategy" is not known, even for heads-up
> holdem, but surely would depend a lot on how your opponent plays.
For heads-up holdem, basic game theory tells us that there is indeed
an optimal
theoretical strategy. It doesn't depend on the opponent's play though.
You are
mixing up the ideas of theoretical strategy and practical strategy. As
backgammon example is
suppose I have two checkers on my 3 point vs my opponent who has 2 on
his ace point. The theoretically
optimal cube play for me is to not double. Practically though it might
be a double (if my opponent is so bad as
to pass such positions).
Bob Koca
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 21:52:45
From: bob
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 13, 11:48 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think the methodology is suspect. He tries to make poker a 2-player
> equivalent game, which it isn't.
I agree that multi player poker is more complicated than 2 player
poker. But my posting the link was
in response to your comment about 5% winning chances against a poker
expert. If you are refusing to consider
the 2 player version what did you mean then by saying "Where you
against Kramnik might leave
you at 1-199 if you played him 200 games, it would be more like 10-190
if you played Phil Ivey or someone."
> If Ivey waits for a 75% sure thing (he mentions 10-10, which
> is the 7th best hand out of 169 different ones... But your chances of
> getting that or better are less than 5%!).
Not sure what you are getting at it since this is an if-then
statement without the then portion. Note though that the
chances of getting such a good hand being low argues that it is hard
for the expert to have a high winning% for the match.
> Informally thinking about it, if the blinds are 10% of the stack,
> and my 75% hand comes 1 out of 4 times (A-x, K-x Q-x, and any PP). Of
> course, I could get a hand worse than the all-in guy, but just as
> easily I could get one that has more of a 90% chance. I should hit
> before I go less than half of his stack.
You get a 75% hand or better after 2 cards much less than 1 out of
4 times.
>
> A raw beginner (someone who has just learned the basic rules and a few general strategies) would have almost no chance of defeating a world-class expert in a 25-point match
> The expert would almost certainly be greater than a 95% favorite
>
> This is a bit of apples and oranges. Poker isn't a 2-player game,
> but I think you'd have to say a RAW beginner (keep in mind, the 'new
> faces' you see in poker have been playing online for years, and for
> money) would have about the same chance in poker.
So you seem to be holding to the 5% figure for 2-player poker.
After two cards the worst situation to be in
would be 2-7 off suit vs AA of those same suits. In an all-in
situation this gives more than 12% to the 27
player (http://www.holdempoker4u.com/poker_calculator.html). Can you
see why that means the all-in player
has at LEAST a 12% chance of winning the match regardless of how small
the blinds are compared to the starting totals?
This is a very crude lower bound. A better lower bound, though still
crude would be the chance of winning if one has 2
unknown cards vs. AA.
If a mathematical argument doesn't sway you, you could try a
simulation out for yourself.
You don't even need another person there. Just pay the blinds and
always assume that the opponent's
action will always be "all-in" and see what % of the matches you can
win.
> There is extreme volatility as a result of the dice
> Single game winning chances can swing 5 to 10% on the opening moves and up to 100% in late game situations
>
> Game winning chances swing 100%? But skill is still involved? Huh?
>
The possibility of certain rolls in certain situations swinging
the game does not preclude that there
may have been skill involved prior to that point. He never said that
the backgammon is devoid of luck.
> I would also posit that a good yardstick is the level of play of
> computers in the game. They put forth a strong game (albeit at the
> whim of the dice) of backgammon. How about poker?
>
I agree that computers play backgammon much better than poker. It
is a game more suited
to computers though so I don't see how that necessarily is proof that
it is a game requiring
more skill for humans.
Bob Koca
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jul 2007 22:33:12
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:52:45 -0700, bob <[email protected] > wrote:
>On Jul 13, 11:48 pm, Patrick Volk <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think the methodology is suspect. He tries to make poker a 2-player
>> equivalent game, which it isn't.
>
> I agree that multi player poker is more complicated than 2 player
>poker. But my posting the link was
>in response to your comment about 5% winning chances against a poker
>expert. If you are refusing to consider
>the 2 player version what did you mean then by saying "Where you
>against Kramnik might leave
>you at 1-199 if you played him 200 games, it would be more like 10-190
>if you played Phil Ivey or someone."
And the article qualifies further as making a match against an amateur
a 25-point one. Why not a 1-point one?
>
>
>> If Ivey waits for a 75% sure thing (he mentions 10-10, which
>> is the 7th best hand out of 169 different ones... But your chances of
>> getting that or better are less than 5%!).
>
> Not sure what you are getting at it since this is an if-then
>statement without the then portion. Note though that the
>chances of getting such a good hand being low argues that it is hard
>for the expert to have a high winning% for the match.
I'm getting at he seems to not know what he's talking about when it
comes to poker.
>
>
>> Informally thinking about it, if the blinds are 10% of the stack,
>> and my 75% hand comes 1 out of 4 times (A-x, K-x Q-x, and any PP). Of
>> course, I could get a hand worse than the all-in guy, but just as
>> easily I could get one that has more of a 90% chance. I should hit
>> before I go less than half of his stack.
>
> You get a 75% hand or better after 2 cards much less than 1 out of
>4 times.
Ok, the top 51 hands (there are 169) is 24% of the time.
The top 42 is 20% of the time.
>
>
>>
>> A raw beginner (someone who has just learned the basic rules and a few general strategies) would have almost no chance of defeating a world-class expert in a 25-point match
>> The expert would almost certainly be greater than a 95% favorite
>>
>> This is a bit of apples and oranges. Poker isn't a 2-player game,
>> but I think you'd have to say a RAW beginner (keep in mind, the 'new
>> faces' you see in poker have been playing online for years, and for
>> money) would have about the same chance in poker.
>
> So you seem to be holding to the 5% figure for 2-player poker.
>After two cards the worst situation to be in
>would be 2-7 off suit vs AA of those same suits. In an all-in
>situation this gives more than 12% to the 27
>player (http://www.holdempoker4u.com/poker_calculator.html).
The calculator says 11%, and that's not the worst hand (the worst is
5.3%)
AA against KK has a probability of 18%.
And your poker calculator appears to be using Monte Carlo analysis, no
pun intended (it says 13% on AA v. KK, but it's really 17%).
http://wizardofodds.com/holdem/calculator/handstrength2/ (it's quicker
too)
> Can you
>see why that means the all-in player
>has at LEAST a 12% chance of winning the match regardless of how small
>the blinds are compared to the starting totals?
>This is a very crude lower bound. A better lower bound, though still
>crude would be the chance of winning if one has 2
>unknown cards vs. AA.
If the blinds don't exist, then I'm at 82%. If the blind is high
enough to not give me a choice, then it's 50%. If we allow seeing the
players cards, it is 95%.
The article as well made mention of a professional environment, a
25-point match, while for poker, that lassitude isn't given.
>
> If a mathematical argument doesn't sway you, you could try a
>simulation out for yourself.
>You don't even need another person there. Just pay the blinds and
>always assume that the opponent's
>action will always be "all-in" and see what % of the matches you can
>win.
If I take the lowest of the 25% hands (A7s), and the average hand (Q-7
of different suits) I get 23%.
>
>> There is extreme volatility as a result of the dice
>> Single game winning chances can swing 5 to 10% on the opening moves and up to 100% in late game situations
>>
>> Game winning chances swing 100%? But skill is still involved? Huh?
>>
>
> The possibility of certain rolls in certain situations swinging
>the game does not preclude that there
>may have been skill involved prior to that point. He never said that
>the backgammon is devoid of luck.
If I make the same statement about poker, it's called luck. He pretty
much said it is luck.
>
>
>> I would also posit that a good yardstick is the level of play of
>> computers in the game. They put forth a strong game (albeit at the
>> whim of the dice) of backgammon. How about poker?
>>
>
> I agree that computers play backgammon much better than poker. It
>is a game more suited
>to computers though so I don't see how that necessarily is proof that
>it is a game requiring
>more skill for humans.
It's the intangibles... All of the information in chess and backgammon
is on the table. There is probability in the backgammon dice, which
isn't known, and cannot be known until the dice are thrown.
I think the thing that rankles me about the analogy is he tries poker
at the worst case, and backgammon at the not-so-worst case.
Out of a field of 6,000 players in this years WSOP, there still are 3
former world champions (I think the top 100, and 2 or 3 more cashed).
>
>Bob Koca
>
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 19:08:17
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 13, 7:54 pm, bob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 13, 6:24 pm, Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Stacks of 10,000 each in a heads-up freezeout with 50-100 blinds.
>
> > If you just go all-in every single hand, even if your opponent uses a
> > mathematically perfect counter strategy, he only has a 61% chance of
> > winning.
>
> Could you point me to more about where this is calculated please.
David Sklansky's tournament poker book.
> Also can you confirm that you are considering the best practical strategy vs an all-in all the time
> player and not the best theoretical strategy.
Yes - it is the best possible strategy against a player who moves in
every hand.
The "best theoretical strategy" is not known, even for heads-up
holdem, but surely would depend a lot on how your opponent plays.
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 16:54:33
From: bob
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 13, 6:24 pm, Iceman <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Stacks of 10,000 each in a heads-up freezeout with 50-100 blinds.
>
> If you just go all-in every single hand, even if your opponent uses a
> mathematically perfect counter strategy, he only has a 61% chance of
> winning.
>
Could you point me to more about where this is calculated please.
Also can you confirm that you
are considering the best practical strategy vs an all-in all the time
player and not the best
theoretical strategy.
Bob Koca
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 15:24:55
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 13, 6:16 pm, bob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 11, 1:01 am, Patrick Volk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In chess, no matter how much you study, the odds of being able to hold
> > your own against Kramnik or Kasparov in their primes is next to zero.
> > Mastery in this sense is not going to happen, and if it does, you
> > would be one of a dozen or so people who can make a decent "living"
> > from chess.
>
> > The disparity is less in poker, because of the variability. Where you
> > against Kramnik might leave you at 1-199 if you played him 200 games,
> > it would be more like 10-190 if you played Phil Ivey or someone.
>
> I think your 5% estimate is not even close. In 2 person play Frank
> Frigo argues that someone
> who knows the rules (even a 10 year old child) could be taught within
> a few seconds how to win about 25% vs. a
> World class player in poker. His argument is good.
Stacks of 10,000 each in a heads-up freezeout with 50-100 blinds.
If you just go all-in every single hand, even if your opponent uses a
mathematically perfect counter strategy, he only has a 61% chance of
winning.
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 15:16:05
From: bob
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 11, 1:01 am, Patrick Volk <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> In chess, no matter how much you study, the odds of being able to hold
> your own against Kramnik or Kasparov in their primes is next to zero.
> Mastery in this sense is not going to happen, and if it does, you
> would be one of a dozen or so people who can make a decent "living"
> from chess.
>
> The disparity is less in poker, because of the variability. Where you
> against Kramnik might leave you at 1-199 if you played him 200 games,
> it would be more like 10-190 if you played Phil Ivey or someone.
>
I think your 5% estimate is not even close. In 2 person play Frank
Frigo argues that someone
who knows the rules (even a 10 year old child) could be taught within
a few seconds how to win about 25% vs. a
World class player in poker. His argument is good. Read
http://www.gammonlife.com/writers/06frigo2.htm
Bob Koca
|
| | |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 23:48:31
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:16:05 -0700, bob <[email protected] > wrote:
>On Jul 11, 1:01 am, Patrick Volk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> In chess, no matter how much you study, the odds of being able to hold
>> your own against Kramnik or Kasparov in their primes is next to zero.
>> Mastery in this sense is not going to happen, and if it does, you
>> would be one of a dozen or so people who can make a decent "living"
>> from chess.
>>
>> The disparity is less in poker, because of the variability. Where you
>> against Kramnik might leave you at 1-199 if you played him 200 games,
>> it would be more like 10-190 if you played Phil Ivey or someone.
>>
>
> I think your 5% estimate is not even close. In 2 person play Frank
>Frigo argues that someone
>who knows the rules (even a 10 year old child) could be taught within
>a few seconds how to win about 25% vs. a
>World class player in poker. His argument is good. Read
>http://www.gammonlife.com/writers/06frigo2.htm
>
>Bob Koca
I think the methodology is suspect. He tries to make poker a 2-player
equivalent game, which it isn't. He then goes on to say the dice
winning moves can cause swings of 100% towards the later game... If
that isn't pure 'probability' (a.k.a luck) I don't know what is!
As far as the all-in, all the time strategy, if it's known, it
changes. If Ivey waits for a 75% sure thing (he mentions 10-10, which
is the 7th best hand out of 169 different ones... But your chances of
getting that or better are less than 5%!).
Informally thinking about it, if the blinds are 10% of the stack,
and my 75% hand comes 1 out of 4 times (A-x, K-x Q-x, and any PP). Of
course, I could get a hand worse than the all-in guy, but just as
easily I could get one that has more of a 90% chance. I should hit
before I go less than half of his stack.
Let me interject a few more things:
>Every decision in Backgammon is a skillful decision
In poker, it probably doesn't have to be, but it should be. You should
be aware of the game you're playing, and the effect position has.
>With the exception of forced moves, every choice requires a skillful assessment of alternatives
Very true in poker. Alternatives offer different levels of risk and
reward.
>Some choices carry more weight than others but all are affected by some amount of skill
Very true in poker as well.
>A raw beginner (someone who has just learned the basic rules and a few general strategies) would have almost no chance of defeating a world-class expert in a 25-point match
>The expert would almost certainly be greater than a 95% favorite
This is a bit of apples and oranges. Poker isn't a 2-player game,
but I think you'd have to say a RAW beginner (keep in mind, the 'new
faces' you see in poker have been playing online for years, and for
money) would have about the same chance in poker.
>There is great parity among top players
>Among experts, it is rare to win more than 60% of open level matches over the long haul
Very true in poker.
>There is extreme volatility as a result of the dice
>Single game winning chances can swing 5 to 10% on the opening moves and up to 100% in late game situations
Game winning chances swing 100%? But skill is still involved? Huh?
>Skill is based on more than just the fundamental knowledge of the game
Very true in poker. Backgammon, you certainly have to take into
account your opponents play. Knowing what beats what in poker is
fundamental knowledge. Knowing what starting hands play well, and what
plays well with lots of players, and knowing position, pot odds, how
to deal with tight players, loose players, and passive and aggressive
ones as well is not fundamental knowledge.
>Temperament, preparation and execution matter a great deal
Patience is probably the main asset a poker player has. Temprerament,
and execution matter as well (preparation isn't detailed).
I would also posit that a good yardstick is the level of play of
computers in the game. They put forth a strong game (albeit at the
whim of the dice) of backgammon. How about poker?
|
| |
Date: 13 Jul 2007 23:17:17
From: Oleg Goryunov
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
"Zero" <[email protected] > wrote
news:[email protected]...
> HI,
>
> I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
> the three games and also good at another as well.
>
> Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
> and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
> high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
> and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
> inactive).
>
> Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.
>
> Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
> backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
> poker has more luck than skill.
>
>
The question is how the games correlate with intellect or better to say with
the general factor of intellect. All the games are not for the only player.
Thus the rating of a player not quite exactly determines his abilities.
There are games for the only player with more exact appraisement of the game
abilities, for example this one http://www.mail-tech.com/rit-en.html
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 20:27:32
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 12, 4:16 pm, Deadmoney Walking <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 4:06 pm, Will in New Haven
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 3:50 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:11:14 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >On Jul 6, 3:24 pm, "mikimaus" <[email protected]> quoted someone else:
> > > >> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> > > >> > backgammon and poker.
> > > >and replied:
> > > >> You noticed some people who are good at two or more. Chess needs one to be
> > > >> an extroverted intuitive thinker while poker doesn't. The best poker players
> > > >> are all extroverted intuitive feelers, either dominantly or secondarily. If
> > > >> it's between poker and backgammon, then you may be right; one does not need
> > > >> to be good at chess to be a top player at those games (and there are top
> > > >> cases who are good at both of them).
> > > > Chess is much more a STRATEGIC game; backgammon much more a
> > > >TACTICAL game. That's why a backgammon game moves so much faster -
> > > >and is over in so much less time, given players of equal ability to
> > > >the chess game.
>
> > > If you had a room full of chess grandmasters, and/or chess computers that
> > > can play at that level, and had a different grandmaster or computer make
> > > each individual move, without communicating with each other in any way,
> > > each would be just as likely to make the proper move in any given situation,
> > > without having any shared "strategy."
>
> > Strategy does not have to be shared. Strategy is decision-making on a
> > larger scale and a deeper time-scale than the tactical. On the other
> > hand, it is a truism in chess that tactics take precedence over
> > strategy. A mate in one if you don't move your king (a tactical
> > situaton) is more important than the need to move your bishop to make
> > your development less one-sided (a strategic consideration)
>
> > Another example, where "strategy" is misused, is the common habit of
> > baseball commentators calling the decision whether or not to bunt or
> > hit and run a strategic decision. Those are tactical decisions. This
> > is so long-established that it never gets criticized but actual
> > strategic decisions involve who to keep on the squad, who gets to play
> > against certain pitchers, etc.
>
> > Will in New Haven
>
> > --
>
> > Dilletantes study tactics
> > Students study strategy
> > Experts study logistics - military saying- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Actually, outside of chess, I have never seen such a bright line in
> between strategy and tactics. For most people, they mean the same
> thing.
That is certainly true but the distinction is a useful one. For
instance, in the Designated Hitter debate, the people who don't like
it claims it removes a great deal of strategy, like bunting and other
stuff centered around how badly Pitchers hit. The people who like the
DH accept that this is strategy, although it isn't, and say it is
faily standardized and unintereting. Either side might be right on its
entertainment value but they are both wrong when they call it
strategy.
The strategy decision that the DH eliminates is "Can I put Frank
Thomas in at First Base and put up with the fact that he is immobile
and never throws the ball and is just plain awful because he is still
one of the best hitters around and much better batter than anyone else
I have to play the position?" Now THAT is an interesting strategic
decision. Just whether or not to have Thomas or a similar player on
your squad is major strategy. It might even transcend strategy and be
a policy decision. Now I am one who will always put the hitter in the
lineup unless I have someone who hits almost as well but sometimes it
is going to cost you some runs, maybe a game.
Will in New Haven
--
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 18:23:49
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
"Will in New Haven" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 12, 4:16 pm, Deadmoney Walking <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 4:06 pm, Will in New Haven
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Jul 12, 3:50 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:11:14 -0700, "[email protected]"
>> > > <[email protected]>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > >On Jul 6, 3:24 pm, "mikimaus" <[email protected]> quoted someone else:
>> > > >> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
>> > > >> > backgammon and poker.
>> > > >and replied:
>> > > >> You noticed some people who are good at two or more. Chess needs one
>> > > >> to be
>> > > >> an extroverted intuitive thinker while poker doesn't. The best poker
>> > > >> players
>> > > >> are all extroverted intuitive feelers, either dominantly or
>> > > >> secondarily. If
>> > > >> it's between poker and backgammon, then you may be right; one does not
>> > > >> need
>> > > >> to be good at chess to be a top player at those games (and there are
>> > > >> top
>> > > >> cases who are good at both of them).
>> > > > Chess is much more a STRATEGIC game; backgammon much more a
>> > > >TACTICAL game. That's why a backgammon game moves so much faster -
>> > > >and is over in so much less time, given players of equal ability to
>> > > >the chess game.
>>
>> > > If you had a room full of chess grandmasters, and/or chess computers that
>> > > can play at that level, and had a different grandmaster or computer make
>> > > each individual move, without communicating with each other in any way,
>> > > each would be just as likely to make the proper move in any given
>> > > situation,
>> > > without having any shared "strategy."
>>
>> > Strategy does not have to be shared. Strategy is decision-making on a
>> > larger scale and a deeper time-scale than the tactical. On the other
>> > hand, it is a truism in chess that tactics take precedence over
>> > strategy. A mate in one if you don't move your king (a tactical
>> > situaton) is more important than the need to move your bishop to make
>> > your development less one-sided (a strategic consideration)
>>
>> > Another example, where "strategy" is misused, is the common habit of
>> > baseball commentators calling the decision whether or not to bunt or
>> > hit and run a strategic decision. Those are tactical decisions. This
>> > is so long-established that it never gets criticized but actual
>> > strategic decisions involve who to keep on the squad, who gets to play
>> > against certain pitchers, etc.
>>
>> > Will in New Haven
>>
>> > --
>>
>> > Dilletantes study tactics
>> > Students study strategy
>> > Experts study logistics - military saying- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Actually, outside of chess, I have never seen such a bright line in
>> between strategy and tactics. For most people, they mean the same
>> thing.
>
> That is certainly true but the distinction is a useful one. For
> instance, in the Designated Hitter debate, the people who don't like
> it claims it removes a great deal of strategy, like bunting and other
> stuff centered around how badly Pitchers hit. The people who like the
> DH accept that this is strategy, although it isn't, and say it is
> faily standardized and unintereting. Either side might be right on its
> entertainment value but they are both wrong when they call it
> strategy.
>
> The strategy decision that the DH eliminates is "Can I put Frank
> Thomas in at First Base and put up with the fact that he is immobile
> and never throws the ball and is just plain awful because he is still
> one of the best hitters around and much better batter than anyone else
> I have to play the position?" Now THAT is an interesting strategic
> decision. Just whether or not to have Thomas or a similar player on
> your squad is major strategy. It might even transcend strategy and be
> a policy decision. Now I am one who will always put the hitter in the
> lineup unless I have someone who hits almost as well but sometimes it
> is going to cost you some runs, maybe a game.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
I think the line between tactics and strategy is not at all as
clear as you imply, even in chess. I think the "strategy" term
is applied to pinch hitting for the pitcher because although
it is a short term decision, it has long term consequences
(you lose your pitcher for the rest of the game) I think
few would consider the Frank Thomas question you posed
as "interesting" even if they would characterize it as "strategic".
The DH rule to a certain degree decouples offense and defense -
so in some sense "simplifies" the decisions to be made -
however it still leaves managers making roster choices
that are second-guessed at every step. So the argument in favor
of the DH would be that the complexity is not significantly
affected, but the quality of play (both hitters and pitchers) is
increased.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 13:16:25
From: Deadmoney Walking
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 12, 4:06 pm, Will in New Haven
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 12, 3:50 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:11:14 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Jul 6, 3:24 pm, "mikimaus" <[email protected]> quoted someone else:
> > >> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> > >> > backgammon and poker.
> > >and replied:
> > >> You noticed some people who are good at two or more. Chess needs one to be
> > >> an extroverted intuitive thinker while poker doesn't. The best poker players
> > >> are all extroverted intuitive feelers, either dominantly or secondarily. If
> > >> it's between poker and backgammon, then you may be right; one does not need
> > >> to be good at chess to be a top player at those games (and there are top
> > >> cases who are good at both of them).
> > > Chess is much more a STRATEGIC game; backgammon much more a
> > >TACTICAL game. That's why a backgammon game moves so much faster -
> > >and is over in so much less time, given players of equal ability to
> > >the chess game.
>
> > If you had a room full of chess grandmasters, and/or chess computers that
> > can play at that level, and had a different grandmaster or computer make
> > each individual move, without communicating with each other in any way,
> > each would be just as likely to make the proper move in any given situation,
> > without having any shared "strategy."
>
> Strategy does not have to be shared. Strategy is decision-making on a
> larger scale and a deeper time-scale than the tactical. On the other
> hand, it is a truism in chess that tactics take precedence over
> strategy. A mate in one if you don't move your king (a tactical
> situaton) is more important than the need to move your bishop to make
> your development less one-sided (a strategic consideration)
>
> Another example, where "strategy" is misused, is the common habit of
> baseball commentators calling the decision whether or not to bunt or
> hit and run a strategic decision. Those are tactical decisions. This
> is so long-established that it never gets criticized but actual
> strategic decisions involve who to keep on the squad, who gets to play
> against certain pitchers, etc.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --
>
> Dilletantes study tactics
> Students study strategy
> Experts study logistics - military saying- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, outside of chess, I have never seen such a bright line in
between strategy and tactics. For most people, they mean the same
thing.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 20:06:16
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 12, 3:50 pm, A Man Beaten by Jacks <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:11:14 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 6, 3:24 pm, "mikimaus" <[email protected]> quoted someone else:
> >> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> >> > backgammon and poker.
> >and replied:
> >> You noticed some people who are good at two or more. Chess needs one to be
> >> an extroverted intuitive thinker while poker doesn't. The best poker players
> >> are all extroverted intuitive feelers, either dominantly or secondarily. If
> >> it's between poker and backgammon, then you may be right; one does not need
> >> to be good at chess to be a top player at those games (and there are top
> >> cases who are good at both of them).
> > Chess is much more a STRATEGIC game; backgammon much more a
> >TACTICAL game. That's why a backgammon game moves so much faster -
> >and is over in so much less time, given players of equal ability to
> >the chess game.
>
> If you had a room full of chess grandmasters, and/or chess computers that
> can play at that level, and had a different grandmaster or computer make
> each individual move, without communicating with each other in any way,
> each would be just as likely to make the proper move in any given situation,
> without having any shared "strategy."
Strategy does not have to be shared. Strategy is decision-making on a
larger scale and a deeper time-scale than the tactical. On the other
hand, it is a truism in chess that tactics take precedence over
strategy. A mate in one if you don't move your king (a tactical
situaton) is more important than the need to move your bishop to make
your development less one-sided (a strategic consideration)
Another example, where "strategy" is misused, is the common habit of
baseball commentators calling the decision whether or not to bunt or
hit and run a strategic decision. Those are tactical decisions. This
is so long-established that it never gets criticized but actual
strategic decisions involve who to keep on the squad, who gets to play
against certain pitchers, etc.
Will in New Haven
--
Dilletantes study tactics
Students study strategy
Experts study logistics - military saying
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 09:11:14
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 6, 3:24 pm, "mikimaus" <[email protected] > quoted someone else:
> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> > backgammon and poker.
and replied:
> You noticed some people who are good at two or more. Chess needs one to be
> an extroverted intuitive thinker while poker doesn't. The best poker players
> are all extroverted intuitive feelers, either dominantly or secondarily. If
> it's between poker and backgammon, then you may be right; one does not need
> to be good at chess to be a top player at those games (and there are top
> cases who are good at both of them).
Chess is much more a STRATEGIC game; backgammon much more a
TACTICAL game. That's why a backgammon game moves so much faster -
and is over in so much less time, given players of equal ability to
the chess game.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jul 2007 15:50:46
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:11:14 -0700, "[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>On Jul 6, 3:24 pm, "mikimaus" <[email protected]> quoted someone else:
>> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
>> > backgammon and poker.
>and replied:
>> You noticed some people who are good at two or more. Chess needs one to be
>> an extroverted intuitive thinker while poker doesn't. The best poker players
>> are all extroverted intuitive feelers, either dominantly or secondarily. If
>> it's between poker and backgammon, then you may be right; one does not need
>> to be good at chess to be a top player at those games (and there are top
>> cases who are good at both of them).
> Chess is much more a STRATEGIC game; backgammon much more a
>TACTICAL game. That's why a backgammon game moves so much faster -
>and is over in so much less time, given players of equal ability to
>the chess game.
If you had a room full of chess grandmasters, and/or chess computers that
can play at that level, and had a different grandmaster or computer make
each individual move, without communicating with each other in any way,
each would be just as likely to make the proper move in any given situation,
without having any shared "strategy."
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 13:04:26
From: Zero
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
in chess you know how good a person's position is because all the
pieces are on the board. in poker, the cards are hidden so you are
basing in on less concrete information.
On Jul 11, 2:06 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Problem with poker is the "know where I'm at" factor. If I plunked
> down the 10 Gs to play at WSOP, there will likely be a learning curve,
> aside from things like going all in with AA pre-flop and getting
> knocked out. I don't know how "steep" that curve would be, because I
> play online only, but I'm not going to put up that kind of money to
> find out, as well as dealing with possible bad luck. I've don't well
> on online tournaments by letting the loose players self-destruct, and
> in limit ring games by trying to tell what kinds of patterns I'm
> dealing with. If I played in a bunch of WSOPs already, my opinion may
> be that I have a good enough advantage that it would be worth the bad
> luck risk.
>
> In chess, you know exactly where you are at, but if you play in a
> class tournament, like the world open, you will likely be up against
> more than a few ringers, or players who just improved their games a
> lot recently, which amounts to the same thing from your perspective.
>
> In backgammon, I know exactly where I'm at, and I know where the other
> player is at. If he/she is not as good, then I'll keep playing that
> person. In chess, you would have to be a ringer yourself to achieve
> this, which is something I won't do. In poker, I would want a lot of
> experience against certain kinds of players in person before I would
> be willing to put down some good money, like at a WSOP event (assuming
> I did well, obviously), but I'd still be concerned about a string of
> bad luck blowing out my money for entry fees. I don't like this
> possibility in the common backgammon tournament format either, because
> I've had really bad luck in long matches, and wouldn't want to get
> knocked out of the tournament due to bad luck. Basically, it makes
> sense to keep the "pros" coming back, while giving the "schmoes"
> enough of a chance to finish in the money to get enough of them so
> that there is a constant fund of them, and the way to accomplish this
> is to have a format that almost guarantees that if you play very well
> you will at lest make a little something.
>
> As to what Guerre said, that may be true if you don't have enough
> players and/or there are not enough rounds. But if it's a 30 round
> Swiss system tournament, for example (of 5 pt matches), I'd want to
> play in it if there were a few hundred players or more. I think I'm
> playing on a level that would just about guarantee cashing in this
> situation (assuming the top 10% or more cash in).
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 08:08:29
From: Hank Youngerman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
I don't think ANY bridge player remembers every card played. The
story is told about a player in the mid-70's who met another player
and was wildly impressed by the fact that the latter could remember
the auction, result, and opening lead on all 26 hands. (That's how
Jeff met Eric, and they have been considered the strongest pair in the
world for about 20 years.)
Certainly some players remember particular hands for a long time. I
remember a hand from the semifinals of the national team championship
in 1999 where I was in 7NT and had to guess which opponent held the
Queen of Clubs. (Coincidentally, it was against the self-same Jeff
and Eric. I got it wrong. The player at the other table holding my
cards, who has more masterpoints than any other person alive, also got
it wrong.) I imagine some chess players remember the same thing, and
likewise with backgammon players.
But I don't think anyone remembers all the cards played over a session
of bridge. The fact is that you don't even look at most of the
cards. Let's say that I hold the AKxx of trumps in one hand and the
Qxxx in the other. I will simply play two high trumps, and if both
opponents follow suit, a third round. I will remember that they split
3-2 in the opposing hands, but not which opponent held which cards. I
may not even remember who had the 3 and who had the 2, unless it gives
me a probability indication about the location of cards in another
suit.
On Jul 11, 2:31 am, fdesse <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 5, 10:47 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 8:50 am, Zero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > HI,
>
> > > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> > > backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
> > > the three games and also good at another as well.
>
> > > Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
> > > and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
> > > high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
> > > and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
> > > inactive).
>
> > > Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.
>
> > > Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
> > > backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
> > > poker has more luck than skill.
>
> > Poker, backgammon, bridge, blackjack counting, and gin are likely
> > highly correlated (with the exception that bridge and gin require that
> > you be able to count down a deck to play at the highest levels and in
> > blackjack ideally you can count down two or more).
>
> It is much easier to remember the cards played to a hand of bridge
> than to remember the discards in a hand of gin. Most strong bridge
> players can remember every card played a session of 26 hands. World-
> class players remember hands for months.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 13:36:51
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 11, 2:31 am, fdesse <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 5, 10:47 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 8:50 am, Zero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > HI,
>
> > > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> > > backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
> > > the three games and also good at another as well.
>
> > > Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
> > > and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
> > > high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
> > > and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
> > > inactive).
>
> > > Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.
>
> > > Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
> > > backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
> > > poker has more luck than skill.
>
> > Poker, backgammon, bridge, blackjack counting, and gin are likely
> > highly correlated (with the exception that bridge and gin require that
> > you be able to count down a deck to play at the highest levels and in
> > blackjack ideally you can count down two or more).
>
> It is much easier to remember the cards played to a hand of bridge
> than to remember the discards in a hand of gin. Most strong bridge
> players can remember every card played a session of 26 hands. World-
> class players remember hands for months.
Any of them could remember the discards in a game of gin. It's the
same deck and the same number of cards. Unless you use a mnemonic
track for bridge that doesn't work for gin, you should be able to do
as well at each.
Until recently I knew every card played in a hand of bridge but I
didn't remember most of the hands after a session. I still remember
hands, however, from 1968, a couple of them. It's been a long time
since I played gin but I don't remember being in much doubt about a
card having been discarded and I don't remember it as being harder
than bridge.
Will in New Haven
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 06:44:27
From: fdesse
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 11:49 am, Iceman <[email protected] > wrote:
> A computer beat the human world champion incheckers, but the match
> series was close.
Jonathan Schaeffer's Chinook program is close to having checkers
solved. So far nine of the most difficult three-move openings have
been proven to draw, and all five vs. five positions have been solved.
There is no human checker player today who could challenge Chinook.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 06:31:22
From: fdesse
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 10:47 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:50 am, Zero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > HI,
>
> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> > backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
> > the three games and also good at another as well.
>
> > Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
> > and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
> > high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
> > and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
> > inactive).
>
> > Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.
>
> > Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
> > backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
> > poker has more luck than skill.
>
> Poker, backgammon, bridge, blackjack counting, and gin are likely
> highly correlated (with the exception that bridge and gin require that
> you be able to count down a deck to play at the highest levels and in
> blackjack ideally you can count down two or more).
It is much easier to remember the cards played to a hand of bridge
than to remember the discards in a hand of gin. Most strong bridge
players can remember every card played a session of 26 hands. World-
class players remember hands for months.
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2007 23:06:15
From:
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
Problem with poker is the "know where I'm at" factor. If I plunked
down the 10 Gs to play at WSOP, there will likely be a learning curve,
aside from things like going all in with AA pre-flop and getting
knocked out. I don't know how "steep" that curve would be, because I
play online only, but I'm not going to put up that kind of money to
find out, as well as dealing with possible bad luck. I've don't well
on online tournaments by letting the loose players self-destruct, and
in limit ring games by trying to tell what kinds of patterns I'm
dealing with. If I played in a bunch of WSOPs already, my opinion may
be that I have a good enough advantage that it would be worth the bad
luck risk.
In chess, you know exactly where you are at, but if you play in a
class tournament, like the world open, you will likely be up against
more than a few ringers, or players who just improved their games a
lot recently, which amounts to the same thing from your perspective.
In backgammon, I know exactly where I'm at, and I know where the other
player is at. If he/she is not as good, then I'll keep playing that
person. In chess, you would have to be a ringer yourself to achieve
this, which is something I won't do. In poker, I would want a lot of
experience against certain kinds of players in person before I would
be willing to put down some good money, like at a WSOP event (assuming
I did well, obviously), but I'd still be concerned about a string of
bad luck blowing out my money for entry fees. I don't like this
possibility in the common backgammon tournament format either, because
I've had really bad luck in long matches, and wouldn't want to get
knocked out of the tournament due to bad luck. Basically, it makes
sense to keep the "pros" coming back, while giving the "schmoes"
enough of a chance to finish in the money to get enough of them so
that there is a constant fund of them, and the way to accomplish this
is to have a format that almost guarantees that if you play very well
you will at lest make a little something.
As to what Guerre said, that may be true if you don't have enough
players and/or there are not enough rounds. But if it's a 30 round
Swiss system tournament, for example (of 5 pt matches), I'd want to
play in it if there were a few hundred players or more. I think I'm
playing on a level that would just about guarantee cashing in this
situation (assuming the top 10% or more cash in).
|
| |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 23:42:31
From: Guerre
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On 9 Jul., 04:59, [email protected] wrote:
> In terms of "playability," the issue of mastery is very important.
> That is, how long does it take to be able to play against the best (if
> ever), and will weak players still be willing to play you once you get
> to this point? Chess is one extreme while poker is the other. In
> other words, you can become good at NL texas hold'em quickly, and you
> can get people to play you who are not very good, but at least over
> the internet your mastery doesn't amount to much. Perhaps in person
> it would make a bigger difference, since you will be able to study
> your opponents in person. I've done well in NLHE tournaments by
> following a simple formula, but these have always been over the
> internet, and many players were very weak (never played for "big
> money"). There is a huge amount of "luck" involved, of course, and
> therefore, you can play in several in a row without even finishing in
> the money, which is why I don't like it.
>
> In chess, no matter how much you study, the odds of being able to hold
> your own against Kramnik or Kasparov in their primes is next to zero.
> Mastery in this sense is not going to happen, and if it does, you
> would be one of a dozen or so people who can make a decent "living"
> from chess.
>
> Backgammon is a good compromise. What I dislike about online
> backgammon is the lack of a Swiss style tournament format (probably 3
> or 5 pt matches). This would allow some weak players to upset the
> best players once in a while, and possibly even win the tournament,
> but the best players would have a big edge. The way it is now, if you
> get unlucky in a 17 or 21 point match, you are out of the tournament,
> even against a fairly weak player. I would like to see this format
> because it is an excellent "compromise" between chess and backgammon -
> if one wants a more poker-like experience in backgammon, one can play
> money games.
In Denk most of the beginners flights at backgammon tournaments are
held in a swiss style format - mostly 7p or 9p matches), and I'm sure
the same goes for a lot of other countries. If only you got out to
live tournaments once in a while, you would probably experience, what
you are asking for.
On the other hand - if you expect the luck factor to be less in a
short-match swiss tournament, than in e.g. a 17-21p cup or double
elimination cup tournament, then you might be disappointed.
|
| |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 19:59:51
From:
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
In terms of "playability," the issue of mastery is very important.
That is, how long does it take to be able to play against the best (if
ever), and will weak players still be willing to play you once you get
to this point? Chess is one extreme while poker is the other. In
other words, you can become good at NL texas hold'em quickly, and you
can get people to play you who are not very good, but at least over
the internet your mastery doesn't amount to much. Perhaps in person
it would make a bigger difference, since you will be able to study
your opponents in person. I've done well in NLHE tournaments by
following a simple formula, but these have always been over the
internet, and many players were very weak (never played for "big
money"). There is a huge amount of "luck" involved, of course, and
therefore, you can play in several in a row without even finishing in
the money, which is why I don't like it.
In chess, no matter how much you study, the odds of being able to hold
your own against Kramnik or Kasparov in their primes is next to zero.
Mastery in this sense is not going to happen, and if it does, you
would be one of a dozen or so people who can make a decent "living"
from chess.
Backgammon is a good compromise. What I dislike about online
backgammon is the lack of a Swiss style tournament format (probably 3
or 5 pt matches). This would allow some weak players to upset the
best players once in a while, and possibly even win the tournament,
but the best players would have a big edge. The way it is now, if you
get unlucky in a 17 or 21 point match, you are out of the tournament,
even against a fairly weak player. I would like to see this format
because it is an excellent "compromise" between chess and backgammon -
if one wants a more poker-like experience in backgammon, one can play
money games.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2007 01:01:46
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:59:51 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>In terms of "playability," the issue of mastery is very important.
>That is, how long does it take to be able to play against the best (if
>ever), and will weak players still be willing to play you once you get
>to this point? Chess is one extreme while poker is the other. In
>other words, you can become good at NL texas hold'em quickly, and you
>can get people to play you who are not very good, but at least over
>the internet your mastery doesn't amount to much. Perhaps in person
>it would make a bigger difference, since you will be able to study
>your opponents in person. I've done well in NLHE tournaments by
>following a simple formula, but these have always been over the
>internet, and many players were very weak (never played for "big
>money"). There is a huge amount of "luck" involved, of course, and
>therefore, you can play in several in a row without even finishing in
>the money, which is why I don't like it.
There is variability in poker. I wouldn't quite call it luck. Luck is
a factor, but not a major one.
Move up to pricier tournaments (I play once a month, generally a $100
tournament in person. Out of our 12 or so regulars, I've won 4 times,
and someone else has won 5 out of 24 monthly games), and the
competition gets better. Playing on the internet I like, as it makes
me pay attention to the patterns (betting patterns mostly).
You're not going to cash every time.
>
>In chess, no matter how much you study, the odds of being able to hold
>your own against Kramnik or Kasparov in their primes is next to zero.
>Mastery in this sense is not going to happen, and if it does, you
>would be one of a dozen or so people who can make a decent "living"
>from chess.
The disparity is less in poker, because of the variability. Where you
against Kramnik might leave you at 1-199 if you played him 200 games,
it would be more like 10-190 if you played Phil Ivey or someone.
But if you look at the tournament records, the same people seem to
cash year to year (Greg Raymer took like 5th in an event at this WSOP,
Phil Ivey won the HORSE event for the second year in a row, Freddy
Deeb got a bracelet, and Mike Matusow cashed).
Poker is essentially a pyramid scheme, unlike chess. To play poker,
you generally have to pay money ($10,000 for the WSOP main, or $50k
for HORSE) especially if you're a pro. All other sports are unlike
that (except maybe backgammon).
>
>Backgammon is a good compromise. What I dislike about online
>backgammon is the lack of a Swiss style tournament format (probably 3
>or 5 pt matches). This would allow some weak players to upset the
>best players once in a while, and possibly even win the tournament,
>but the best players would have a big edge. The way it is now, if you
>get unlucky in a 17 or 21 point match, you are out of the tournament,
>even against a fairly weak player. I would like to see this format
>because it is an excellent "compromise" between chess and backgammon -
>if one wants a more poker-like experience in backgammon, one can play
>money games.
>
|
| |
Date: 08 Jul 2007 01:50:25
From: Patrick Volk
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:50:00 -0700, Zero <[email protected] > wrote:
>HI,
>
>I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
>backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
>the three games and also good at another as well.
>
>Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
>and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
>high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
>and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
>inactive).
>
>Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.
>
>Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
>backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
>poker has more luck than skill.
I think there's different kinds of thinking for all three. Chess I
think is a game where if you're willing to put in the time, you'll be
decent. It requires study (and that probably explains how poker
players can play chess, and vice-versa).
Poker IMHO doesn't require as much study. But it does require more
nerve. Poker I think is more situational than chess, more tactical.
Chess is much more strategic (it's not worth looking more than 2-3
moves ahead in poker, and the options are much narrower).
Backgammon has a strategy, but there are tactical elements to it
(the doubling cube, offense v. defense).
Luck is definitely an element in poker. But probability will even
out the luck. If you set up a situation where a player is given a set
series of hands (and all the opponents get the same hands, all things
being equal), chances are different people will have different
results. Dan Harrington said it well, the best strategy for poker is
the opposite of the other players strategy. But, players will change
their strategy from loose to tight, and you must adjust accordingly.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 15:46:55
From: number6
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 6, 4:40 pm, bob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 6, 1:41 pm, number6 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > O Sharif was also a world class bridge and backgammon player ...
> > I forget others ... but from say 68-75 ... it was prevalent ...
>
> Are you sure about him being WC at backgammon? He had a column but
> that could well be due
> to his celebrity rather than expertise. Did he have tournamnet
> success?
>
> Bob Koca
Only know what I read ... Back then he was mentioned as a bridge/
backgammon expert ... I played and followed high level tournament
bridge ... so I knew him there ... Didn't play any high level
backgammon tourneys so only had word of mouth ...
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 15:24:11
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 3:46 pm, Jason Pawloski <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 5, 12:42 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > I'd throw Hearts in there.
>
> > I've never played hearts with anyone who wasn't terrible. I have no
> > idea what the "deep" strategy for it looks like, if there is any. As
> > far as I can tell it mostly consists of counting down the deck and a
> > bit of fairly obvious a priori suit split reasoning.
>
> > Is there more going on?
>
> It depends on if you play with the Jack of Diamonds as a -10 or not.
> If you don't, you are right that play tends to be rather academic. But
> if you do, its no longer an issue of getting rid of your high cards if
> you're not trying to shoot the moon.
Three-handed hearts, with the jack of diamonds counting as -10, and
passing cards every hand, is a very skillful game.
Four-handed hearts, with no points for the jack of diamonds, and no
passing, is a very mechanical game.
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 15:20:35
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 6, 1:13 pm, Will in New Haven <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Jul 5, 9:32 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The three games have little resemblance to each other. Backgammon has
> > only one kind of "piece" - of no inherent power or value - and all
> > "pieces" of one color move in one direction; backgammon has dice - and
> > the outcome never is clear early on the way it often is in chess
> > games. Chess has many kinds of pieces with different moves - and
> > power and value - with all but pawns moving both forward and backward,
> > and no element of luck. Backgammon has a doubling cube that chess
> > doesn't - and that doubling cube can be used to (at high risk) try to
> > force the opponent to resign.
>
> Never played chess with a doubling cube? I played a guy a nine-game
> match once for twenty dollars a point. I never bet that much on chess
> but he gave me a pawn and I started with the cube. He settled up after
> four games because he hadn't realized that starting with the cube gave
> me so much of an edge.
Chess games rarely have the advantage shifting back and forth the way
backgammon games do, however, so I wouldn't think possession of the
cube would be nearly as important in chess as it is in backgammon.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jul 2007 12:59:59
From: Michael Sullivan
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
Iceman <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess games rarely have the advantage shifting back and forth the way
> backgammon games do, however, so I wouldn't think possession of the
> cube would be nearly as important in chess as it is in backgammon.
I think that tends to keep the cube smaller, but it doesn't seem like it
provides any less advantage. If the skills aren't even close (after
adjusting for the handicap), then I think you're right that it isn't
very important -- the weaker player will have few chances to double.
But if the weaker player would win as much as 45% of the time, owning
the cube gives a significant advantage. Break even should be somewhere
around 40%. If the pawn alone was enough to equalize them, then Will
had a huge advantage with the cube.
The player who owns the cube can turn .6+ equity into a win. The player
who doesn't cannot.
Of course, fractional equity is an imaginary concept in chess, where the
true equity is always either -1, 0 or 1. But consider that Will is the
weaker player (he needed a pawn as well). If I'm playing somebody a
couple hundred ELO points ahead of me but I'm getting a pawn, it will be
fairly common for me to have a won game at some point but be at real
risk of making a critical mistake and ending up with a draw or loss.
But if I toss the cube, I don't have to worry about that (or if I do, at
least we're playing from doubled stakes in a position where I should win
75% of the time). My opponent doesn't have that luxury, unless he's
*already* turned the game around from my doubling him.
Most of his wins will be single wins that he must play out to the bitter
end, while I will only have to play mine out to the end when the stakes
are doubled.
Michael
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 14:40:43
From: bob
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 6, 1:41 pm, number6 <[email protected] > wrote:
> O Sharif was also a world class bridge and backgammon player ...
> I forget others ... but from say 68-75 ... it was prevalent ...
Are you sure about him being WC at backgammon? He had a column but
that could well be due
to his celebrity rather than expertise. Did he have tournamnet
success?
Bob Koca
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 20:18:55
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 6, 1:26 pm, Hank Youngerman <[email protected] > wrote:
> I started playing bridge tournaments in 1983, and I remember very few
> between-sessions backgammon games. Pretty much none.
Where were you playing? It seems to me that there were still games in
the NYC area at most tournaments. One guy, the guy who had the book
concession, was always hustling a game.
>
> I heard about a week-long backgammon game at the 1995 Nationals
> though, for $10,000 a point. The story I heard was that N beat R for
> 96 points. I have no verification that it happened though.
>
> Keep in mind that bridge is also played for stakes, sometimes
> substantial. Again however, I have not seem much money bridge played
> in the years I've been in bridge. I played in a 3-cent-a-point game
> for a while a few years back. This may be because the top pros can
> make a nice living playing professionally in tournaments. I think
> that was rarer prior to about the late 70's.
I made something approximating a living in the NYC bridge clubs in the
middle Seventies. It is a horrible gambling game, compared to poker.
You can't fold your weak hands. You have to play with everyone else in
the foursome and one player is usually so bad that winning with him or
her is very tough.
>
> There was a chouette in the DC area for quite a few years, and at
> least three of the regulars (Kit Woolsey, Kent Goulding, and Les Bart)
> were also serious bridge players.
I knew that Woolsey played backgammon. He's a great bridge player and
I bet he's very good at backgammon also.
Will in New Haven
--
>
> On Jul 6, 1:06 pm, Will in New Haven <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 11:50 am, number6 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 5, 10:50 am, Zero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > HI,
>
> > > > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> > > > backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
> > > > the three games and also good at another as well.
>
> > > > Is there a correlation between the games?
>
> > > Let me throw bridge in the mix also ... and note ... that computers
> > > play rather crappy bridge ... rather crappy poker ... but excellent
> > > chess and almost as good backgammon ...
>
> > > When I was playing a lot of tournament bridge ... I was amazed at all
> > > the Backgammon games going on in lounges between sessions ... mostly
> > > high level against high level competition ...
>
> > > I think the greatest correlation is that the people who play all ...
> > > like to analyze situations .... and make decisions based on that
> > > analysis ...
> > > Game play in itself for the various games is very different ...
>
> > Backgammon came into the bridge scene and killed between-sessions
> > poker games at major tournaments. Killed them stone-dead as they had
> > been fairly hard to organize and had led to hotels getting all antsy
> > and once, in Akron, to an arrest. Then backgammon pretty much died a
> > few years ago. I stopped playing when people I could actually beat
> > wouldn't play for money anymore but I haven't seen more than one or
> > two games going on between sessions in years. Used to be there would
> > be tons of games, many of them chouettes.
>
> > Will in New Haven
>
> > --- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 13:15:04
From: phlash74
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 3:16 pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
<[email protected] > wrote:
> > I think the most significant distinction is between games of complete
> > information (chess, backgammon) and those of incomplete information
> > (bridge, poker). In the latter, you often have to guess what your
> > opponents are doing (and your partner also in bridge, although
> > nominally he is on your side.)
>
> Chess has incomplete information in the form of a human opponent.
>
> --
> Ray Gordon
> Foxhunting: The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guruhttp://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
>
> FREE e-books on how to get laid!
Uh, what?
Chess is a game of complete information because you can see where all
the pieces on the board are. You may not be able to predict what your
opponent will do, but you can see his action and the consequences for
the position before you make your next move. Poker is a game of
incomplete information because you only see your cards and the board
cards in flop games or your opponents' up cards in stud games.
Michael
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 22:24:35
From: mikimaus
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
> I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> backgammon and poker.
You noticed some people who are good at two or more. Chess needs one to be
an extroverted intuitive thinker while poker doesn't. The best poker players
are all extroverted intuitive feelers, either dominantly or secondarily. If
it's between poker and backgammon, then you may be right; one does not need
to be good at chess to be a top player at those games (and there are top
cases who are good at both of them).
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 11:29:59
From: Hank Youngerman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
I know this is a backgammon newsgroup, but there are so many Barry
Crane stories. For about 30 years, it was "against the rules" to win
the McKenny Trophy (for most masterpoints won in a year) without
Barry's permission. He won it himself 7 times, and in other years,
you basically had to ask Barry's OK. One of his partners, Hermine
Baron, decided to try for it in 1963 (maybe it was 1964) without
Barry's permission; he never spoke to her again. In 1980 or 81 a rich
amateur named Mel Skolnik decided to go for it. Mel not only hired
top pros to play with him, but he hired other pros to go to
tournaments where Barry was playing to keep Barry from winning. Barry
mostly played on weekends, as he was a TV writer/director/producer
during the week. Barry ultimately resorted to sending his regular
partners to tournaments so that Skolnik would send his hired guns
there, then Barry would go somewhere else to play.
After Barry died (he was murdered in 1985, the killer was never found)
the McKenney Trophy was renamed the Barry Crane trophy. His real name
was Barry Cohen, but he changed it due to anti-semitism in the film
industry.
Barry Crane's Eleven Commandments:
Never pull partner's penalty doubles.
Always take a sure profit.
Watch out for the three level.
The more you bid, the more you got.
Sevens are singletons.
Don't bid grand slams in Swiss Teams.
Don't put cards in partner's hand.
Jesus saves, we defend.
Don't eat between sessions.
Never ask "How's your game."
Never gloat.
On Jul 6, 1:41 pm, number6 <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 6, 1:26 pm, Hank Youngerman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I started playing bridge tournaments in 1983, and I remember very few
> > between-sessions backgammon games. Pretty much none.
>
> I had stopped playing tournament bridge by then ... One of the best
> bridge players then Barry Crane ... was also a world class backgammon
> player ... I played one backgammon game with him between sessions at a
> regional tournament ... We played at adjacent tables ... and I
> outperformed him significantly in the morning session ... we won the
> section and he was 3rd ... Very personable ... saw him sitting with
> the backgammon game laid out ... He congratulated me on our
> performance ... one word led to another ... and we played ... I held
> my own for a bit ... then he hit a magical roll and it went downhill
> fast ...
> he knew how to gamble with the opponent on the ropes ...
> O Sharif was also a world class bridge and backgammon player ...
> I forget others ... but from say 68-75 ... it was prevalent ...
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 10:41:22
From: number6
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 6, 1:26 pm, Hank Youngerman <[email protected] > wrote:
> I started playing bridge tournaments in 1983, and I remember very few
> between-sessions backgammon games. Pretty much none.
>
I had stopped playing tournament bridge by then ... One of the best
bridge players then Barry Crane ... was also a world class backgammon
player ... I played one backgammon game with him between sessions at a
regional tournament ... We played at adjacent tables ... and I
outperformed him significantly in the morning session ... we won the
section and he was 3rd ... Very personable ... saw him sitting with
the backgammon game laid out ... He congratulated me on our
performance ... one word led to another ... and we played ... I held
my own for a bit ... then he hit a magical roll and it went downhill
fast ...
he knew how to gamble with the opponent on the ropes ...
O Sharif was also a world class bridge and backgammon player ...
I forget others ... but from say 68-75 ... it was prevalent ...
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 10:26:19
From: Hank Youngerman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
I started playing bridge tournaments in 1983, and I remember very few
between-sessions backgammon games. Pretty much none.
I heard about a week-long backgammon game at the 1995 Nationals
though, for $10,000 a point. The story I heard was that N beat R for
96 points. I have no verification that it happened though.
Keep in mind that bridge is also played for stakes, sometimes
substantial. Again however, I have not seem much money bridge played
in the years I've been in bridge. I played in a 3-cent-a-point game
for a while a few years back. This may be because the top pros can
make a nice living playing professionally in tournaments. I think
that was rarer prior to about the late 70's.
There was a chouette in the DC area for quite a few years, and at
least three of the regulars (Kit Woolsey, Kent Goulding, and Les Bart)
were also serious bridge players.
On Jul 6, 1:06 pm, Will in New Haven <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Jul 5, 11:50 am, number6 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 10:50 am, Zero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > HI,
>
> > > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> > > backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
> > > the three games and also good at another as well.
>
> > > Is there a correlation between the games?
>
> > Let me throw bridge in the mix also ... and note ... that computers
> > play rather crappy bridge ... rather crappy poker ... but excellent
> > chess and almost as good backgammon ...
>
> > When I was playing a lot of tournament bridge ... I was amazed at all
> > the Backgammon games going on in lounges between sessions ... mostly
> > high level against high level competition ...
>
> > I think the greatest correlation is that the people who play all ...
> > like to analyze situations .... and make decisions based on that
> > analysis ...
> > Game play in itself for the various games is very different ...
>
> Backgammon came into the bridge scene and killed between-sessions
> poker games at major tournaments. Killed them stone-dead as they had
> been fairly hard to organize and had led to hotels getting all antsy
> and once, in Akron, to an arrest. Then backgammon pretty much died a
> few years ago. I stopped playing when people I could actually beat
> wouldn't play for money anymore but I haven't seen more than one or
> two games going on between sessions in years. Used to be there would
> be tons of games, many of them chouettes.
>
> Will in New Haven
>
> --- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 17:13:07
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 9:32 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The three games have little resemblance to each other. Backgammon has
> only one kind of "piece" - of no inherent power or value - and all
> "pieces" of one color move in one direction; backgammon has dice - and
> the outcome never is clear early on the way it often is in chess
> games. Chess has many kinds of pieces with different moves - and
> power and value - with all but pawns moving both forward and backward,
> and no element of luck. Backgammon has a doubling cube that chess
> doesn't - and that doubling cube can be used to (at high risk) try to
> force the opponent to resign.
Never played chess with a doubling cube? I played a guy a nine-game
match once for twenty dollars a point. I never bet that much on chess
but he gave me a pawn and I started with the cube. He settled up after
four games because he hadn't realized that starting with the cube gave
me so much of an edge.
Will in New Haven
--
>
> No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 17:06:52
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 11:50 am, number6 <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 5, 10:50 am, Zero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > HI,
>
> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> > backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
> > the three games and also good at another as well.
>
> > Is there a correlation between the games?
>
> Let me throw bridge in the mix also ... and note ... that computers
> play rather crappy bridge ... rather crappy poker ... but excellent
> chess and almost as good backgammon ...
>
> When I was playing a lot of tournament bridge ... I was amazed at all
> the Backgammon games going on in lounges between sessions ... mostly
> high level against high level competition ...
>
> I think the greatest correlation is that the people who play all ...
> like to analyze situations .... and make decisions based on that
> analysis ...
> Game play in itself for the various games is very different ...
Backgammon came into the bridge scene and killed between-sessions
poker games at major tournaments. Killed them stone-dead as they had
been fairly hard to organize and had led to hotels getting all antsy
and once, in Akron, to an arrest. Then backgammon pretty much died a
few years ago. I stopped playing when people I could actually beat
wouldn't play for money anymore but I haven't seen more than one or
two games going on between sessions in years. Used to be there would
be tons of games, many of them chouettes.
Will in New Haven
--
|
| |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 09:17:33
From: Zero
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 3:42 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > I'd throw Hearts in there.
>
> I've never played hearts with anyone who wasn't terrible. I have no
> idea what the "deep" strategy for it looks like, if there is any. As
> far as I can tell it mostly consists of counting down the deck and a
> bit of fairly obvious a priori suit split reasoning.
>
> Is there more going on?
if you throw in hearts, can't you throw in spades as well?
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 18:32:45
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
The three games have little resemblance to each other. Backgammon has
only one kind of "piece" - of no inherent power or value - and all
"pieces" of one color move in one direction; backgammon has dice - and
the outcome never is clear early on the way it often is in chess
games. Chess has many kinds of pieces with different moves - and
power and value - with all but pawns moving both forward and backward,
and no element of luck. Backgammon has a doubling cube that chess
doesn't - and that doubling cube can be used to (at high risk) try to
force the opponent to resign.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 01:57:44
From: Palooka
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The three games have little resemblance to each other. Backgammon has
> only one kind of "piece" - of no inherent power or value - and all
> "pieces" of one color move in one direction; backgammon has dice - and
> the outcome never is clear early on the way it often is in chess
> games. Chess has many kinds of pieces with different moves - and
> power and value - with all but pawns moving both forward and backward,
> and no element of luck. Backgammon has a doubling cube that chess
> doesn't - and that doubling cube can be used to (at high risk) try to
> force the opponent to resign.
>
High risk? The doubling cube in backgammon is the most important weapon. And
for that matter, if you think that there isn't a doubling cube in chess, you
have not played it for money.
Palooka
|
| | |
Date: 06 Jul 2007 01:53:40
From: Michael Petch
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On 7/5/07 7:32 PM, in article
[email protected], "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
[snip]
> and no element of luck. Backgammon has a doubling cube that chess
> doesn't - and that doubling cube can be used to (at high risk) try to
> force the opponent to resign.
>
I have a suspicion this statement is going to garner a number of responses.
I think this is an overly simplistic, and incorrect.
The whole intent of the cube is to increase your match winning chances - not
decreasing it. If you cube too early you lose equity, if you cube late you
lose equity, if you cube at the right time - you maximize your equity. If
you cube and you think its risky then I venture to guess it may not be a
cube at all.
Now of course this may not ring true if you have an opponent of much
different playing strength.
The cube itself is a fine element of BG - it requires skill to use properly.
Any additional skill in BG is a good thing because the better you are
against an opp, the more likely you are to win (In the long term).
Ultimately the doubling cube is a tool a BG player uses - not to necessarily
make an opponent resign - but used to increase the chances of oneself
winning, or maximizing your payout in a money session.
Mike
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 15:44:31
From: Richard
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 1:34 pm, David Nicoson <[email protected] > wrote:
> I think the correlation between good poker players and good chess
> players isn't anything deeper than to say st people are good at
> games.
I have to disagree with this one. As a chess player, I've seen plenty
of strong players at tourneys who are clearly below average
intelligence. None of them are grandmasters, but they're strong
amateurs or even low level masters.
And the single stest human being I've ever met in my life is one of
the worst game players I've ever seen. I'm sure he could have learned
to play any game well if he chose to study them, but the couple of
times we played various games, he clearly had less natural talent than
any of us in our "geeky" honor student social group in high school.
--Richard
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 15:36:33
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 3:04 pm, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The best chess computers today are probably slightly better than the
> > best human players (10 years ago the best computers and top humans
> > were about at the same level), but it wouldn't be a total blowout.
>
> That's not true. The best computer (Hydra) is substantially stronger
> than the best humans. The best computers which run on
> commercially-available hardware are "probably slightly better than the
> best human players" but that's not the same thing.
I left the computer world 10 years ago, and wasn't aware of Hydra. I
figured it was inevitable that computers would eventually beat the
best human players.
> > But the best computer programs are only at the level of a strong
> > amateur in bridge, a mediocre amateur in poker (except in heads-up
> > limit holdem where the computers are pretty strong), and an advanced
> > beginner in go.
>
> The interesting thing about poker, though, is how well amateurs do
> compared to professionals. While it's true that the best professionals
> consistently do a lot better than the best amateurs, in poker you
> consistently see tournaments won by a player of mediocre skills who
> happened to get the best cards.
That's a reflection of the short-term luck factor in poker. In poker
any reasonable player can win one single tournament, and even the best
players aren't that much better than the field. David Sklansky
estimates that the best tournament players have an EV of only about
double the buy-in. In chess, even a difference of 200 rating points
means that the better player will virtually always win. Put ten
grandmasters together, and you can't be sure that the 2740 will win
and not the 2680. But have a field of hundreds of players of greatly
varying abilities, and it will almost always sort closely by ratings -
you won't see a 1400 win a major open event ever.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 18:14:57
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
The common denominator in all of music, math, and chess (and art) is the
ability to think in the abstract.
There are subclassifications which further define niches that are more
applicable to a specific game.
Phil Hellmuth is rated over 2400 at one-minute chess, and is a good poker
player. I saw him give Nakamura a very tough battle on ICC one night.
--
Ray Gordon
Foxhunting: The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
FREE e-books on how to get laid!
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 22:06:49
From: Simon Waters
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:42:27 +0000, wayne.vinson wrote:
>> I'd throw Hearts in there.
>
> ...
>
> Is there more going on?
Depends if you play the four handed version we played at Uni.
But I think there are good hearts variants that are fairly sophisticated
games. None of them were as good as Bridge IMHO, but good fun, and simpler/
quicker to teach so all the family can lose against you ;)
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 14:40:07
From:
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
I can only speak to chess, poker, and BG. As Duncan Suttles pointed
out in an interview, you need a certain amount of "technical" ability
in chess, or else you can't compete with the "big boys," and your
games will often be a "slop fest" when you analyze them later. It
seems that this kind of ability is obtained at a young age, so if you
don't have it by your late teens or so, you can write off serious
chess. I find it tedious, laborious, and intellectually unsatisfying.
Poker (let's stick with NL texas hold'em for the moment) varies. The
major factors are live vs. internet, and ring vs. tournament.
Tournament play can be very simple, especially if it is a "turbo"
format. In a ring game, if you don't know the people, and they are
coming and going quickly, as is common over the internet, then it's
mostly a guessing game. You hope the players are really bad, so that
you have a good chance of winning. If you play the same people each
week, and you can actually see them, then the game is much more
interesting, though this is not available to everyone, of course.
BG is a game of mostly of judgment. There are certain "basics" one
needs to know, and as you get better, your repertoire of "basics"
expands, but if you don't have good BG judgment, you will not be able
to remember enough of the basics, expanded greatly or not, to be very
good. In chess, judgment and rudimentary basics can get you far, but
not to the top levels - to be a "super GM," you need to have "super
basics" - that technical ability Suttles realized he did not possess.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 13:21:27
From: Hank Youngerman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
A priori suit splits are of very little value when cards are passed.
Plus, you know three cards in the hand of the person you passed them
to.
In bridge there is a saying "Play the card you are known to hold as
soon as you can, if it can't cost a trick." I suspect that high-level
hearts involves the same thing, playing the card you were passed
rather than an equal card.
Counting down the deck is significant, but so are things like putting
the right player on lead, if he is in the right position (a concept
similar to poker, you want to see what everyone else does before you
commit yourself) or ir he is likely/forced to lead a suit you want him
to lead.
On Jul 5, 3:46 pm, Jason Pawloski <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 5, 12:42 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > I'd throw Hearts in there.
>
> > I've never played hearts with anyone who wasn't terrible. I have no
> > idea what the "deep" strategy for it looks like, if there is any. As
> > far as I can tell it mostly consists of counting down the deck and a
> > bit of fairly obvious a priori suit split reasoning.
>
> > Is there more going on?
>
> It depends on if you play with the Jack of Diamonds as a -10 or not.
> If you don't, you are right that play tends to be rather academic. But
> if you do, its no longer an issue of getting rid of your high cards if
> you're not trying to shoot the moon.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 20:12:02
From:
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
> I am not much of a black jack player, but I did play a lot of bridge in my
> earlier life. I have tried to learn to count cards at blackjack but found
> it tedious and "not-fun." I never had that "feeling" playing bridge.
> (Poker trumpted my interest in bridge and blackjack.)
I can't imagine a bigger high than knowing you have a 30% edge for the
rest of the shoe because you've "found" two sequences from the
previous deal running, and the house doesn't care how much you bet
because you're playing very bizarrely and not varying your bet size.
That's as close as a mere mortal is going to get to a license to print
money.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 20:06:17
From:
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
> I'm not a bridge player, but in my experience this is false.
>
> In blackjack, you need significantly less information. You don't
> really care of the ace of hearts or the jack of clubs has been
> played-- you just count the big cards and the small cards that
> have been seen and use the ratio to make decisions.
I think this sells blackjack a little short. While suit (and rank for
10's) is obviously irrelevant, counting down by rank still offers some
additional value beyond a simple up&down point count if you're quick
enough to make use of the information. Being able to find +EV or 0EV
variations from basic strategy (other than splitting tens) on the fly
helps your camouflage a ton because you look like a total blackjack
donk.
And card domination/shuffle tracking iis a job for rainman since you
need to remember suit and order of the previous deal to get maximum
benefit.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 19:55:59
From:
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
> It depends on if you play with the Jack of Diamonds as a -10 or not.
> If you don't, you are right that play tends to be rather academic. But
> if you do, its no longer an issue of getting rid of your high cards if
> you're not trying to shoot the moon.
Interesting. It'll tell you how much of a hearts newbie I am that
I've never even heard of that variation. I can see how it would be
far more interesting though.
Most of my non-poker effort has been devoted to bridge and gin lately.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 12:55:41
From: number6
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 3:04 pm, Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> That's not true. The best computer (Hydra) is substantially stronger
> than the best humans. The best computers which run on
> commercially-available hardware are "probably slightly better than the
> best human players" but that's not the same thing.
Quite a number of years back ... on an April 1, tin Gardener in
Scientific American published an article showing a computer had
determined a forced win for White after P-QR4 ...
I wonder how far we are from finding out something like that which is
not an April Fools joke ...
Early Chess programs were bascially a brute force program ...Which
Chess Grandmasters laughed at ... those developed now that are
virtually undefeatable even by World Champions combine brute force
with position evaluation algorithms ...
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 12:46:10
From: Jason Pawloski
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 12:42 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > I'd throw Hearts in there.
>
> I've never played hearts with anyone who wasn't terrible. I have no
> idea what the "deep" strategy for it looks like, if there is any. As
> far as I can tell it mostly consists of counting down the deck and a
> bit of fairly obvious a priori suit split reasoning.
>
> Is there more going on?
It depends on if you play with the Jack of Diamonds as a -10 or not.
If you don't, you are right that play tends to be rather academic. But
if you do, its no longer an issue of getting rid of your high cards if
you're not trying to shoot the moon.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 19:42:27
From:
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
> I'd throw Hearts in there.
I've never played hearts with anyone who wasn't terrible. I have no
idea what the "deep" strategy for it looks like, if there is any. As
far as I can tell it mostly consists of counting down the deck and a
bit of fairly obvious a priori suit split reasoning.
Is there more going on?
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 12:37:51
From: Jason Pawloski
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 8:47 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:50 am, Zero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > HI,
>
> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> > backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
> > the three games and also good at another as well.
>
> > Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
> > and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
> > high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
> > and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
> > inactive).
>
> > Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.
>
> > Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
> > backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
> > poker has more luck than skill.
>
> Poker, backgammon, bridge, blackjack counting, and gin are likely
> highly correlated (with the exception that bridge and gin require that
> you be able to count down a deck to play at the highest levels and in
> blackjack ideally you can count down two or more). Chess requires a
> large amount of memorization of historical play that isn't really
> similar to poker at all. I'd say it's much more closely related to
> the other oppositional search 2-player board games than to poker.
I'd throw Hearts in there.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 12:20:50
From: Hank Youngerman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
It is much easier to count a deck in bridge than in blackjack. For
starters, in bridge, you see 26 of the cards at the start. Second,
the cards are pretty much all played in suits; i.e. it is not at all
uncommon for, say, a round of clubs to be played, then for all or
nearly all the spades to be played out before another suit is
touched. Third, the meaningful focus is only on the remaining high
cards in a suit. If the three highest outstanding cards are the King,
Jack, and ten, it doesn't matter much if the 2/3/5 or the 4/5/7 are
out. Fourth when one side is exhausted of a suit, it matters little
what cards the other side has. If North has only the club A and South
only the K and 2, once those three cards are played, it doesn't matter
which of the remaining cards East holds and which West holds. The
pace in bridge is also more deliberate, since counting is a legitimate
part of the game, no one is obligated to play until they have properly
digested the cards played to the last trick, while in blackjack you
could hardly say to the dealer "Wait a minute, please collect the
cards more slowly, I couldn't remember them all."
I think the most significant distinction is between games of complete
information (chess, backgammon) and those of incomplete information
(bridge, poker). In the latter, you often have to guess what your
opponents are doing (and your partner also in bridge, although
nominally he is on your side.)
On Jul 5, 11:47 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 5, 8:50 am, Zero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > HI,
>
> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> > backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
> > the three games and also good at another as well.
>
> > Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
> > and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
> > high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
> > and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
> > inactive).
>
> > Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.
>
> > Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
> > backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
> > poker has more luck than skill.
>
> Poker, backgammon, bridge, blackjack counting, and gin are likely
> highly correlated (with the exception that bridge and gin require that
> you be able to count down a deck to play at the highest levels and in
> blackjack ideally you can count down two or more). Chess requires a
> large amount of memorization of historical play that isn't really
> similar to poker at all. I'd say it's much more closely related to
> the other oppositional search 2-player board games than to poker.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 18:16:36
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
> I think the most significant distinction is between games of complete
> information (chess, backgammon) and those of incomplete information
> (bridge, poker). In the latter, you often have to guess what your
> opponents are doing (and your partner also in bridge, although
> nominally he is on your side.)
Chess has incomplete information in the form of a human opponent.
--
Ray Gordon
Foxhunting: The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
FREE e-books on how to get laid!
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 19:49:07
From: Patti Beadles
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Hank Youngerman <[email protected] > wrote:
>It is much easier to count a deck in bridge than in blackjack.
I'm not a bridge player, but in my experience this is false.
In blackjack, you need significantly less information. You don't
really care of the ace of hearts or the jack of clubs has been
played-- you just count the big cards and the small cards that
have been seen and use the ratio to make decisions.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Jul 2007 12:59:58
From: Michael Sullivan
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
Patti Beadles <[email protected] > wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Hank Youngerman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >It is much easier to count a deck in bridge than in blackjack.
> I'm not a bridge player, but in my experience this is false.
I am a pretty average bridge player, but I think he's right, at least
for the sort of people who play abstract games well. The reason is that
Bridge counting is dependent on tactical patterns, so there's a mental
framework that the cards fit into. You're not remembering where each
individual card is, instead you're figuring out how the cards fit
tactical patterns, and in some cases you can tell immediately that
certain details are irrelevant.
You get to see half of the cards as soon as dummy comes down -- this
plus the bidding allows you to build a very good picture of the various
hands, usually with missing information reduced to a fairly small number
of questions like "Who has the Kc?" "How do the spades split?" On many
hands, it's not necessary to track *any* suit in complete detail (i.e.
more than just how many cards are played), and it's pretty rare to need
the detail in more than two suits.
If you have the kind of mind that puts these things into abstract mental
pictures, then once you understand the tactics of the game, keeping
track of the cards becomes fairly intuitive. I never put much energy
into learning how to do it, I just started doing it better and better
once I "got" the game, eventually it became a habit.
No way that would happen with blackjack.
For example, I also play casino, a simple two player card game where
card counting is de rigeur and critical. I am unable to keep track of
the whole deck in that game, because the particular tactical maps don't
encompass the whole deck the way they do in bridge or hearts.
People who play casino for real (if there are any left) absolutely count
every card, and you can pretty much destroy anybody who doesn't if you
do. If I played it for money or if there were bigtime tournaments, I'd
have to practice counting just like people do with blackjack. I never
had to practice counting in bridge. Not because I'm some kind of freak
with a photographic memory, but just because it makes more sense.
Michael
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 14:57:11
From: da pickle
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
"Patti Beadles"
>>It is much easier to count a deck in bridge than in blackjack.
>
> I'm not a bridge player, but in my experience this is false.
>
> In blackjack, you need significantly less information. You don't
> really care of the ace of hearts or the jack of clubs has been
> played-- you just count the big cards and the small cards that
> have been seen and use the ratio to make decisions.
I am not much of a black jack player, but I did play a lot of bridge in my
earlier life. I have tried to learn to count cards at blackjack but found
it tedious and "not-fun." I never had that "feeling" playing bridge.
(Poker trumpted my interest in bridge and blackjack.)
I must agree that it is easier to be aware of cards in bridge. You already
know 26 cards before you start and you are interested in very few that you
do not "know" about. You also have a pretty good idea of where the
"important" cards are when you start and you only add two new cards per
round.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 10:48:26
From: number6
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 12:49 pm, Iceman <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 5, 11:50 am, number6 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 10:50 am, Zero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > HI,
>
> > > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> > > backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
> > > the three games and also good at another as well.
>
> > > Is there a correlation between the games?
>
> > Let me throw bridge in the mix also ... and note ... that computers
> > play rather crappy bridge ... rather crappy poker ... but excellent
> > chess and almost as good backgammon ...
>
> The best chess computers today are probably slightly better than the
> best human players (10 years ago the best computers and top humans
> were about at the same level), but it wouldn't be a total blowout.
>
> A computer beat the human world champion in checkers, but the match
> series was close.
>
> A computer totally destroyed the human Othello/Reversi champion.
>
> Computers are roughly on the level of a world-class human player in
> backgammon.
>
> But the best computer programs are only at the level of a strong
> amateur in bridge, a mediocre amateur in poker (except in heads-up
> limit holdem where the computers are pretty strong), and an advanced
> beginner in go.
I just know in relationship to myself ... I play Bridge, Chess and
Backgammon quite well ... ( not quite LM in Bridge ... quit playing
tournaments too early ... near master in Chess also before I stopped
competions ... and a lot of good play against highly ranked Backgammon
players - never in competions though) Never lost to computer
bridge ... lose consistently to master level chess programs ... barely
hold my own against good Backgammon programs ...
In poker games online ... I've seen several players playing bots ...
they get so easy to defence ... give them pot odds at times ... and
take them away at others ... Just like in Bridge ... there are certain
things the program will never do ... and certain things it will always
do ...
The Chess programs don't gobble pieces ... The Backgammon programs
don't hit every blot ...
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 10:34:50
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
I think the correlation between good poker players and good chess
players isn't anything deeper than to say st people are good at
games.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 09:49:46
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 11:50 am, number6 <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 5, 10:50 am, Zero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > HI,
>
> > I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> > backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
> > the three games and also good at another as well.
>
> > Is there a correlation between the games?
>
> Let me throw bridge in the mix also ... and note ... that computers
> play rather crappy bridge ... rather crappy poker ... but excellent
> chess and almost as good backgammon ...
The best chess computers today are probably slightly better than the
best human players (10 years ago the best computers and top humans
were about at the same level), but it wouldn't be a total blowout.
A computer beat the human world champion in checkers, but the match
series was close.
A computer totally destroyed the human Othello/Reversi champion.
Computers are roughly on the level of a world-class human player in
backgammon.
But the best computer programs are only at the level of a strong
amateur in bridge, a mediocre amateur in poker (except in heads-up
limit holdem where the computers are pretty strong), and an advanced
beginner in go.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 12:04:48
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Iceman <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> The best chess computers today are probably slightly better than the
> best human players (10 years ago the best computers and top humans
> were about at the same level), but it wouldn't be a total blowout.
That's not true. The best computer (Hydra) is substantially stronger
than the best humans. The best computers which run on
commercially-available hardware are "probably slightly better than the
best human players" but that's not the same thing.
> But the best computer programs are only at the level of a strong
> amateur in bridge, a mediocre amateur in poker (except in heads-up
> limit holdem where the computers are pretty strong), and an advanced
> beginner in go.
The interesting thing about poker, though, is how well amateurs do
compared to professionals. While it's true that the best professionals
consistently do a lot better than the best amateurs, in poker you
consistently see tournaments won by a player of mediocre skills who
happened to get the best cards.
I'm not sure what the chess comparison is for Ben Affleck winning a
serious poker tournament, or Chris Moneymaker winning the biggest
tourney of them all. The best celebrity chess players are probably
around master strength, and a master would get utterly destroyed by
chess professionals. Ben Affleck may be a strong amateur poker player,
but a strong amateur would have no chance against a group of
professionals in chess.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 08:50:24
From: number6
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 10:50 am, Zero <[email protected] > wrote:
> HI,
>
> I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
> the three games and also good at another as well.
>
> Is there a correlation between the games?
Let me throw bridge in the mix also ... and note ... that computers
play rather crappy bridge ... rather crappy poker ... but excellent
chess and almost as good backgammon ...
When I was playing a lot of tournament bridge ... I was amazed at all
the Backgammon games going on in lounges between sessions ... mostly
high level against high level competition ...
I think the greatest correlation is that the people who play all ...
like to analyze situations .... and make decisions based on that
analysis ...
Game play in itself for the various games is very different ...
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 15:47:58
From:
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 8:50 am, Zero <[email protected] > wrote:
> HI,
>
> I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
> the three games and also good at another as well.
>
> Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
> and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
> high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
> and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
> inactive).
>
> Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.
>
> Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
> backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
> poker has more luck than skill.
Poker, backgammon, bridge, blackjack counting, and gin are likely
highly correlated (with the exception that bridge and gin require that
you be able to count down a deck to play at the highest levels and in
blackjack ideally you can count down two or more). Chess requires a
large amount of memorization of historical play that isn't really
similar to poker at all. I'd say it's much more closely related to
the other oppositional search 2-player board games than to poker.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 08:41:33
From: Iceman
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 10:50 am, Zero <[email protected] > wrote:
> HI,
>
> I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
> the three games and also good at another as well.
>
> Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
> and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
> high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
> and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
> inactive).
>
> Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.
>
> Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
> backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
> poker has more luck than skill.
The skills involved overlap somewhat. Chess focuses on strategies,
memorization and problem solving. All three of those skills are also
important in bridge, but I would weight problem solving more highly in
bridge. Backgammon is all about strategies and calculated risks.
Poker also involves strategies and calculated risks, and hand reading
involves a strong component of problem solving, but has much more of a
people component than those other games.
Skills like being able to remember information from one point in a
game and use that information effectively when making later decisions
in that game, or being able to identify an opponent's mistakes and
adjust your play to take advantage of them, would transfer between
poker and those other games.
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2007 15:21:13
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: Correlation with chess, backgammon, and poker??
|
On Jul 5, 10:50 am, Zero <[email protected] > wrote:
> HI,
>
> I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
> backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
> the three games and also good at another as well.
>
> Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
> and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
> high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
> and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
> inactive).
>
> Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.
>
> Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
> backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
> poker has more luck than skill.
There is some correlation among those games and also bridge. Probably
gin as well. Your idea that poker has less to do with skill than
backgammon is laughably stupid.
Will in New Haven
--
|
|
