Phil Ivey vs. Magnus Carlsen..poker and chess - Chess Forums - Page 4

DiogenesDue

Sep 28, 2014

0

#61

Julio_Ajedrez wrote:

this is not relevant in praxis. why? because it is more likely for us to win at both chess vs magnus or poker vs phil due to them having heart attacks during the games than actually beating ivey in 100'000+ hands.

and as i stated earlier, it's part of the game to play lots of hands in poker. after all, a hand online takes far less than a minute on average, that's like checking one possible short line in chess. makes no sense to compare chess moves to poker hands, or chess games/tournaments to poker evenings/tournaments.

To me, it makes no sense to compare a solid month's worth of hands online to a single chess game ;). So I guess we're at an impasse; the fact that this imbalance is what's required to makes the comparison "fair" kind of makes my point for me anyway...

P.S. Ok, good to know I am not lumped in with "friends" since I don't know Pulpo at all ;)...

toiyabe

Sep 28, 2014

0

#62

You guys can debate these statistics as much as you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact that chess is SIGNIFICANTLY more complex than poker. Just think about the amount of knowledge that a lowly 2500 GM possesses in regards to chess, and compare to amount of knowledge that a WSOP final table'er has in regards to poker. It's not even in the same discussion. Chess GM's study chess for hours every day, for years and years. To become great at chess you need to be helped out through genetics/talent/however you want to describe it. Talent simply doesn't exist in other games the way it does in chess.

I'm not denying that top poker players are skilled, because they most definitely are and would take my rent money every time. BUT, if one were ambitious enough, one could become a skilled poker player in a reasonable amount of time(a couple years of hard work). But if you want to become a skilled chess player and didn't start before you were maybe 12 years old, you're shit out of luck! Chess is a different beast and I really can't believe any of you are comparing the talents of top poker players with top chess players.

Pulpofeira

Sep 28, 2014

0

#63

Julio_Ajedrez escribió:

btickler hat geschrieben:

P.S. My cousin runs an ad agency in Barcelona. I would not confuse one debate with general "open mindedness" about an individual.

i wasn't referring to you with this. pulpo was just being a d*** about the fact that i chose spain as my country since i live here, as he realized i'm no native due to my language.

That's not true, I haven't any problem with that. I have criticized you sometimes because you was posting pure nonsense...

toiyabe

Sep 28, 2014

0

#64

Julio_Ajedrez wrote:

why do you still compare a final tabler to a GM? oh why?

Because the premise of this topic was comparing a top chess player with a top poker player? ??

toiyabe

Sep 28, 2014

0

#65

Julio_Ajedrez wrote:

Fixing_A_Hole hat geschrieben:

I'm not denying that top poker players are skilled, because they most definitely are and would take my rent money every time. BUT, if one were ambitious enough, one could become a skilled poker player in a reasonable amount of time(a couple years of hard work). But if you want to become a skilled chess player and didn't start before you were maybe 12 years old, you're shit out of luck! Chess is a different beast and I really can't believe any of you are comparing the talents of top poker players with top chess players.

you really think all it takes to get good at poker is a couple of years, no matter the talent involved?

so you really think all we humans need to to to get rich and get everything we want is spend a couple of years working on poker and then earning the $$$?

so, to sum it up, you really think poker is the golden way to realize the american dream? congrats, you have been thoroughly mindf***ed by anything the media ever tried to sell you in regards to poker.

Your obsession with the financial aspect of poker has nothing to do with this discussion. There are many ways to get rich in this world by spending a couple years time, poker is no different.

And not sure the purpose of you bringing up the "american dream" and the media, I give a shit about neither.

Pulpofeira

Sep 28, 2014

0

#66

Agree. And now could you explain why do you think the fact of showing my flag without being of my country has annoyed me?

Pulpofeira

Sep 28, 2014

0

#67

It doesn't matter.

Pulpofeira

Sep 28, 2014

0

#68

What it was bothering me was to see it so close to all the nonsense you was posting, is not about real nationalities.

Scottrf

Sep 28, 2014

0

#69

btickler wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

And you're confusing that with poker being less skilled/easier to learn. It's not the same thing.

Where did I do that, exactly? You can argue all day that the nuances of the top level of a game take a lifetime to master...but that is not the point, and it doesn't change the fact that it's much easier/faster to get within reasonable striking distance of competing with a top-flight pro poker player than it is to get within reasonable striking distance of a 2750+ chess player.

You said Ivey could teach Carlsen to play 90% as well in 8-10 weeks.

Pulpofeira

Sep 28, 2014

0

#70

You are smart. Keep it going!

toiyabe

Sep 28, 2014

0

#71

Julio_Ajedrez wrote:

and a final tabler is a top poker player?

please, stop commenting. it has been explained to you a dozen times now that final tabling one tournament is not an indication of skill and should therefore not be compared with achievements such as tournament wins, titles and the likes in chess.

How many times are you going to play semantics? How about "perennial final tabler". Does that work for your feeble mind?

toiyabe

Sep 28, 2014

0

#72

Julio_Ajedrez wrote:

just because you give a shit does not mean there is no talent involved in poker. or do you really think everybody would be at the same exact playing strength after all have spent say 5 years on the game?

the sole idea that a game as complex as poker does not require talent is laughable really.

and i brought these things up because everybody above average intelligence would go out and crush poker if it really was that easy. just because you like chess more does not mean that is therefore a more complex game, einstein.

and before further commenting on anything related to poker, do yourself a favor and inform yourself. it's really disgusting actually to see a person spilling so much blatant bullshit because he has no clue what he's talking about and yet still thinks he knows the truth and nothing but the truth.

you know, I would never judge poker and chess regarding their complexity. it's because i do not understand enough about chess, and possibly also not enough about poker. but general theory on both games tends to agree that there are no signs whatsoever to indicate superior complexitiy of one of the two.

you on the other hand might know a little more about chess than i do, but you clearly have no idea about poker yet you seem so certain regarding this question.

it's time to fix your hole.

Oh where to start on this post.

1)I never said there is no talent in poker, I said it is not comparable to the talent in chess, which is undeniable. In fact there is probably no other game I can think of that is similar to chess in this regard, with the possible exception of Go.

2)Of course not everyone would be at the same point after 5 years of study. I don't have time to give a genetics lecture, maybe go to college?

3)Chess is not a more complex game because I enjoy it more, its a more complex game BECAUSE IT IS. Just to get this straight: Are you saying that poker is just as complex as chess?

4)Feel free to keep attacking me personally, you've shown your maturity multiple times throughout this thread.

Scottrf

Sep 28, 2014

0

#73

Fixing_A_Hole wrote:

3)Chess is not a more complex game because I enjoy it more, its a more complex game BECAUSE IT IS. Just to get this straight: Are you saying that poker is just as complex as chess?

Chess is solvable. In poker there will always be a new situation.

Elubas

Sep 28, 2014

0

#74

lol, ok, and we can't teach a computer how to jump. Therefore jumping is more complex than chess. Gotcha.

"could you please briefly ellaborate what talents it takes to play chess vs poker, and why chess takes more talent?"

lol what do you expect someone to do, write a book? If I wrote reasons you would just dismiss them or say something like "well poker takes skill too!" I think I'm going to play it safe here and think that the decision on "does he have something good or something bad" is maybe not the hardest thing in the world, even if it's harder than it seems. Just spewing things out like "pot odds" or other random stuff isn't automatically going to change my mind :)

Elubas

Sep 28, 2014

0

#75

Julio_Ajedrez wrote:

how many of these perennial final tablers do you know? do you know more of them or more GMs? what does that tell you?

Do I know more chess players in the top five than poker players in the top five? No :)

Scottrf

Sep 28, 2014

0

#76

Elubas wrote:

lol, ok, and we can't teach a computer how to jump. Therefore jumping is more complex than chess. Gotcha.

"could you please briefly ellaborate what talents it takes to play chess vs poker, and why chess takes more talent?"

lol what do you expect someone to do, write a novel? If I wrote reasons you would just dismiss them or say something like "well poker takes skill too!" I think I'm going to play it safe here and think that the decision on "does he have something good or something bad" is maybe not the hardest thing in the world, even if it's harder than it seems. Just spewing things out like "pot odds" or other random stuff isn't automatically going to change my mind :)

Just because your view on poker is simple, doesn't mean the game is.

Elubas

Sep 28, 2014

0

#77

Let's suppose chess had a 70x70 board, and proportionately more chess pieces, maybe even add one or two new types of pieces. Ok, so in theory all we have to do is get a computer to calculate a bunch of moves. And that's not going to make it any easier for a human to fathom this game compared to poker.

So it's kind of a weak argument to think that the fact that chess is confined to a board means anything that is not similarly confined is more complex. Maybe in some sense, but it's not clear how meaningful it would be -- again look at my example above.

In the case of the above example, yeah I might compare apples to oranges, since the alternative is to give the benefit of the doubt unreasonably.

Scottrf

Sep 28, 2014

0

#78

It's better to say you don't know if you only understand or have studied one of the games though. Otherwise you end up sounding stupid, saying things like 'I think I'm going to play it safe here and think that the decision on "does he have something good or something bad" is maybe not the hardest thing in the world'

Which is something like saying 'chess is easy, you just have to decide where to move'.

Elubas

Sep 28, 2014

0

#79

Scottrf wrote:

Elubas wrote:

lol, ok, and we can't teach a computer how to jump. Therefore jumping is more complex than chess. Gotcha.

"could you please briefly ellaborate what talents it takes to play chess vs poker, and why chess takes more talent?"

lol what do you expect someone to do, write a novel? If I wrote reasons you would just dismiss them or say something like "well poker takes skill too!" I think I'm going to play it safe here and think that the decision on "does he have something good or something bad" is maybe not the hardest thing in the world, even if it's harder than it seems. Just spewing things out like "pot odds" or other random stuff isn't automatically going to change my mind :)

Just because your view on poker is simple, doesn't mean the game is.

I didn't say it was simple. I know there are lots of things people consider in the decision making.

I also know how easy it is for people to unnecessarily focus on a few minute details and then miss the big picture. Pretty much anything can be made to look complex. Oh yeah bluffing isn't just bluffing, it's this extremely complicated psychological process where I'm thinking about a million things where you wonder if he's bluffing also, or if he wanted to make you think he was bluffing, etc. etc.

Or... maybe it's just having the courage to take a risk.

Elubas

Sep 28, 2014

0

#80

Scottrf wrote:

It's better to say you don't know if you only understand or have studied one of the games though. Otherwise you end up sounding stupid, saying things like 'I think I'm going to play it safe here and think that the decision on "does he have something good or something bad" is maybe not the hardest thing in the world'

Which is something like saying 'chess is easy, you just have to decide where to move'.

I'm not sure about that. I mean say someone wanted to just come out and make an argument that checkers is harder than chess, saying, hey, you don't understand what it's like to decide when to jump over other guys!"

So should I take five hours to sift through such an argument or go with the option that doesn't need to glorify one particular aspect of the game? In chess just by the different pieces I can easily point to how many different situations there are to combat in a game.

So, no, I think it actually is better a lot of times to use your judgment than just look at everything as equal. Neither of them are nearly as reliable as we would like them to be, but if we're picking between alternatives you can make a good case for the former.