Phil Ivey vs. Magnus Carlsen..poker and chess

Ok. But the things I just came up with with little poker experience are nowhere near as vague as "attack, defend." I mean that's practically circular. Yeah you win by attacking, if you know how to attack, and how the hell do you do that.

I didn't need any sort of thousand pattern recognition for these poker tactics.

They were just as vague. To you they are complicated but that's just because you don't know the game.

"They were just as vague."

Not really, given that they weren't circular. Betting, raising, etc, is actually not that vague -- me calling is the same as someone else calling. Me attacking is not the same as someone else attacking.

I don't think that wannabe pro poker players are turned off by tedium as much as by pure frustration.  Imagine if when you played a perfect game of chess against a great opponent, ekeing out a tiny advantage and slowly grinding away until you finally promote 2 moves before your opponent does, suddenly the TD came over as you were reaching for your new queen and said "new rule, promotions are random now", then rolled a die and gave you a bishop for your promotion ;).  Two moves later, your opponent gets a shiny new queen.  All that work and that beautiful game, wasted.  Then your opponent grins at you sheepishly and shrugs.

You can play a near perfect night of poker (or a perfect week, or month) and still lose the house when you get dealt two Qs and your opponent gets two Ks...so it takes either a stellar bankroll or the patience of Job to smooth out the random ups and downs (or crazy luck in the short term...see: Jamie Gold).  Most players have neither the former nor the latter, and so must settle for patience.  Playing the numbers with discipline instead of trusting their gut (guts are used to tip the scales only when the numbers say it's a close enough call...players that toss out the probabilities because they saw a certain twinkle in their opponent's sunglasses get wrecked sooner or later; usually sooner).

Speaking of Gin Rummy, it's a deeply strategic game that I think lots of chess players would enjoy. If you played it as a kid, try playing it again as an adult and doing some reading on Gin Rummy strategy.

Not if it's only two folks playing.  'Course nobody wants to play two-handed poker.

I can't wait for the Chris Moneymaker of the chess scene.  How cool would that be?

I know that.  Kinda' why I mentioned it.

Loads of people play heads up poker.

They must either be playing for loads of cash or they can't find their chess board!

Well, seeing the "average" poker player is pretty bad, I agree. We can, however, say the same about chess if we expand what we mean to everyone that ever plays. We tend to only consider avid players when comparing chess skill, where we take a far wider view of poker. 

Even then, "learn as you go" is usually a disaster in poker. A lot of things in poker are nowhere near intuitive. Those that try to learn by doing almost always wind up being weak-tight, which will do ok against completely horrible opponents, but will get crushed against better players that can exploit it. 

Better than average meaning, I suppose, than the average serious one, the kind that would go to tournaments.

If we are talking all tournaments, like local weekly $75 tournaments or whatever, then we aren't narrowing it down much. The worst regular players tend to play tournaments because of the built in loss limit and a chance of maybe making the money.

Without study, your ceiling is probably someone that can beat only the worst regular players, and even that isn't a given. Some people, smart people, just never really put it together. I used to play with a math professor on a regular basis, and he was just horrible. Other people have exceptional talent that gets them a bit farther, but without study, not all that much further. 

Talent that is hard to quantify is a big issue. David Sklansky has written some of the best books on poker theory. He's nowhere near being an elite player. Understanding the mechanics and theory of poker just isn't enough. Bill Chen is likely the smartest high profile poker player, and his understanding of the mathematics of the game is also likely better than anyone else's. He co-wrote a staggering book on the subject.  He's won a few WSOP events, but nobody is calling him the best player on earth, just the smartest. 

When you see those people who are very young come out of nowhere and have repeated tournament success, it is important to note that for every one you know of there is about 1000 that crashed and burned, and the typical 21 or 22 year old poker phenom has studied a ton of poker theory and has been playing online since probably well before he/she was 18 and in that time played far, far more hands than someone like Doyle Brunson played in the first sixty years of his life.  

No? What if someone just memorizes computer lines? Would that be considered "cheating"? Caurana could have just memorized computer lines at Sinquefield

What about those "idiot savants"

Just how deep of an engine line do you think a GM can memorize?  There are probably 3-5 viable responses to every move, so...start multiplying.

When a GM does engine prep with a line, they probably (a) prepare a line of a variation they know the opponent favors heavily, and/or (b) only take it out a half dozen or so moves.

Why bring up Caruana? hes a cheater.

how can actors and actresses memorize lines? How can people memorize multiple choice questions before a test?

Jion, make yourself disappear, spammer.

Will this match ever happen?