chess/poker

Yep. I think it's because the tactics get so high level. If there was a show where they showed morphy-ish games, and explained the basics of pins, forks etc, more regular folk might get into it.

But generally, this is how the general public sees chess:

1. It's proportional to IQ. The person with the highest IQ wins (so many people don't enjoy playing chess, because losing implies they're stupid).
2. Computers can beat any human easily, so what's the point watching humans play? 

In Poker and chess money moves from some people to others but overall richness is not created because they don´t create real benefit for society therefore better to put the money on medicine or science for example.

Also poker is much faster.. next hand you can get the Aces again! Not in chess..

Yeah, I never seem to get anything better than a king-queen-suited...

:) Well I often have a queen of a different suit stalking my king!

Both poker and chess are ingeniously designed games. I think in both cases the strength of the design centers around the idea of balance.

Poker is well designed because the elements of luck and skill are in perfect harmony.  The unskilled player wins just often enough through luck to keep chasing his last win and the skilled player wins consistently enough through skill that he can grind out a long-term profit.  By appealing to both kinds of players, poker creates an ecosystem that sustains itself.  Of secondary importance is the fact that poker appears deceptively simple.  Many of the skills required to excel at poker are not apparent to the beginner or bad player.  This helps to constantly bring new money into the poker economy since the beginner rarely understands the size of his disadvantage.

I know much less about chess than poker.  But in my two months of playing I have concluded that chess is the most rich and beautiful game in the world.  What strikes me the most about chess its inherent harmony and balance.  If ever over the past 1000+ years a dominant strategy had emerged the game of chess would have crumbled.  But the game’s design is such that with every measure there seems a counter measure to wrest away the lead or at least equalize if only the player is clever enough to find it.  In this way, chess and poker can be similar since both reward players who understand their opponent’s ideas and strategies and can make better adjustments as the game progresses.

Another interesting point of comparison is how both games treat mistakes.  In poker the player often makes the right pay and loses (through bad luck) or the wrong play and wins (through good luck).  This breaks the operant conditioning logic that governs decision making and makes bad players less aware of their mistakes (a good feature when the game is based on money and you need to attract bad players). Chess, on the other hand, has a much more direct feedback loop.  Mistakes are ruthlessly punished every time provided the opponent is good enough to see them.  While this makes the game more intimidating to beginners it also makes it the game easier to learn in some ways.

uhohspaghettio said: "Rubbish. Every game has different strategies to it, every game is like that. Nothing would have 'crumbled'. You're just fabricating this in your mind."

I think you misinterpreted the remark.  I think they intended to mean that if ever a clearly winning opening had emerged (i.e. a winning opening with a limited number of forced lines all leading to clear advantages for white) then people would stop playing chess.

Dominant Strategy – In game theory dominant strategy occurs when one strategy is better than another strategy for one player, no matter how that player’s opponents may play.

I’m using a common term here.  Uhohspaghettio is very quick with his sweepingly authoritative negative posts but it doesn’t appear that he understands even basic game theory.

Isiah,

Yes, you're right, "dominant strategy" is a technical term in mathematics that has a very specific meaning.  I wasn't going to get into that with everyone, but it's true.  Of course, spaghettio also is under the impression that poker is a "simple" game, so game theory is not the extent of his/her ignorance.  (BTW, open invite to my table, spaghettio!)

uhohspaghettio said: "There aren't many serious chess players who would be bothered with that sort of nonsense [poker]."

Bob Ciaffione might disagree with you on that.

redbirdpat said: "Games like poker don't make money because they attract greedy people per se.  It's that the objective of poker IS to make money"

Not necessarily, at least not always.  Tournaments, esp. short-handed ones among friends, can be played purely for bragging rights, no payouts.

I've played poker for 14 years and chess for about 10 years.  I don't find poker nearly as rewarding as chess.  Someone mentioned the fact that you can make the correct play and lose, or the incorrect play and win in poker.  I don't like that about any game.  Poker is the most frusterating game to play when you do everything correctly and still lose.

jwhitesj said: "Someone mentioned the fact that you can make the correct play and lose, or the incorrect play and win in poker.  I don't like that about any game.  Poker is the most frusterating game to play when you do everything correctly and still lose."

But the frustration is the defining aspect of poker.  Without it, the game doesn't exist.  The whole game is based on the concept that operant conditioning is turned on its head.  The element of randomness confuses people's conditioning, and it's this confusion that allows good players to beat weak players in the long run.  You can like it or not like it, but if you want to succeed at poker, you must come to terms with this fundamental aspect at some point.

Many people think that poker is a game of cards played with money. Actually, it is a game of money played with cards.

(Someone else said this, I'm not that brilliant).

That is why I gave up on poker, I dont' like it.  If you like it that's fine, but I dont

"Perhaps chess is the wrong game for the times. Poker is now everywhere, as amateurs dream of winning millions and being on television for playing a card game whose complexities can be detailed on a single piece of paper."

Garry Kasparov

If this were true, many people would pay a great deal to possess that single piece of paper.

It's hard to tell if Kaspy is pulling our leg.  He's either trying to poke fun (and not very successful at it), or he's incredibly ignorant.

jwhitesj said: "That is why I gave up on poker, I dont' like it.  If you like it that's fine, but I dont"

Fair enough.  I can definitely understand the feeling.  They tell you "you should welcome bad beats", but it's easier said than done.  At least you understand the game and quit playing it for a good reason.

Thanks to the FullTilt fiasco, poker's reputation might be damaged beyond repair, at least in the foreseeable future.  In any case, the Rounders-Moneymaker boon is over for good.

Poker may be a pyramid scheme, but I don't think it's a pyramid scheme any more than any other "entertainment" industry is (music, movies, pro sports, etc.)  People are still willing to throw their money away on craps and blackjack, and as long as there is gambling (which has been around thousands of years) there will be poker.

Can we delete all of these chess/poker threads except for 1?