So Scott until you take two hours to solve Tic Tac Toe, don't claim you know "anything at all" about whether Tic Tac Toe or chess is harder.
Not even a little bit. Remember, not "anything at all."
Phil Ivey vs. Magnus Carlsen..poker and chess
Sort:
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
I have an honest question: Is there anything in poker that can't be learned?
Well, you can never truly know with certainty many things because it's a game of incomplete information. You can't know an opponents tendancies to full accuracy.
It really depends on what you specifically mean by the question? Can you know for 100% certainty what it's best to do at a particular time? Often not.
If you mean general strategy, probably not but that has to be adapted to people and situations, and is constantly changing. The game is very much different to how it was 5 years ago.
btickler wrote:
Which is not out line with anything else I said. You're assuming a somewhat linear skill progression, which is strange since you yourself seemed to be saying that at the very top level there is a ton of skill packed in ;)...
Being able to perform at 90% of Ivey's capacity for a winning result in a single heads up encounter is in no way is equivalent to absorbing 90% of everything Phil Ivey knows about Poker.
Well in that case a 2000 player might be 90% as good as Carlsen as he'd choose a lot of the same moves. It's not the reality. I see your point but I think we can agree it was intended to deceive. Playing 90% as well is nothing, it's useless (and unmeasurable).
I'm a poker god. I could beat Magnus.
"Anyway this is over, you're not interested in learning."
Well no, I don't want to study it for weeks just to be 10% more sure of whether I'm right or not.
Scottrf wrote:
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.
Coin flip results are even less "solvable" than Poker.
"Julio,
Why are you wasting your time arguing with idiots?"
Yeah, that's a pretty strong argument. I think poker is more complex than chess now.
btickler wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
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.
This is another misguided argument. Just because something is theoretically soluble doesn't mean it's simpler or easier to play well.
Yeah that wasn't very serious other than to say they can't be compared.
Sep 28, 2014
0
#111
Scottrf wrote:
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
I have an honest question: Is there anything in poker that can't be learned?
Well, you can never truly know with certainty many things because it's a game of incomplete information. You can't know an opponents tendancies to full accuracy.
It really depends on what you specifically mean by the question? Can you know for 100% certainty what it's best to do at a particular time? Often not.
If you mean general strategy, probably not but that has to be adapted to people and situations, and is constantly changing. The game is very much different to how it was 5 years ago.
Now I would counter with the idea that there are things in chess that one cannot learn. I could study for 12 hours a day til I'm rotting in the ground and still not know things that Magnus knew before his balls dropped.
Fixing_A_Hole wrote:
Now I would counter with the idea that there are things in chess that one cannot learn. I could study for 12 hours a day til I'm rotting in the ground and still not know things that Magnus knew before his balls dropped.
Well, that's a different thing. They may be learnable, it's doesn't mean you can learn every learnable thing in one lifetime.
Julio_Ajedrez wrote:
i need to kill some time. and it actually was kind of an experiment, after seeing how tom made himself look like an idiot couple years ago i always wondered if we could get a chess player to do so the other way round. shame there's no NM or IM who's willing to try his luck at some HU.
Probably not. Chess players don't like throw random luck directly into their gameplay...they get upset enough about round pairings/byes and the like.
Am I supposed to think there is a 50-50 chance chess is more complex than monopoly too? Why because someone might want to know the odds of throwing an 8 on a certain turn? Or know whether the yellow properties are better than the orange ones? Wow how complex. Not to say there is nothing to monopoly, but...
In view of the above, surely you would understand my concerns with just gulping down anything a poker player wants to say to convince everyone of how complex it is.
There are some things that are more complex than they appear on the surface. There are other things, like chess, that already are complex on the surface.
Sep 28, 2014
0
#115
"Why are you wasting your time arguing with idiots?"
Yeah, that's a pretty strong argument. I think poker is more complex than chess now."
Yes, I consider you an idiot. My working definition of an idiot is someone who, rather than taking awareness of their ignorance of something as a learning opportunity, takes pride in their ignorance. You're behaving exactly like the people who argue for hours on end that 0.999... is not equal to 1, or that the notion of different sizes of infinity is "obvious nonsense", etc., etc.
Sep 28, 2014
0
#116
"I have an honest question: Is there anything in poker that can't be learned?"
Sure. Raw talent.
ModularGroupGamma wrote:
"Why are you wasting your time arguing with idiots?"
Yeah, that's a pretty strong argument. I think poker is more complex than chess now."
Yes, I consider you an idiot. My working definition of an idiot is someone who, rather than taking awareness of their ignorance of something as a learning opportunity, takes pride in their ignorance. You're behaving exactly like the people who argue for hours on end that 0.999... is not equal to 1, or that the notion of different sizes of infinity is "obvious nonsense", etc., etc.
Oh no, I was considered to be an idiot. And I can consider you to be one. None of these claims seem to indicate much about intelligence one way or the other.
Interestingly enough I believe .999... is equal to one, and that the different sizes of infinity makes sense.
Julio_Ajedrez wrote:
Elubas hat geschrieben:
Am I supposed to think there is a 50-50 chance chess is more complex than monopoly too? Why because someone might want to know the odds of throwing an 8 on a certain turn? Or know whether the yellow properties are better than the orange ones? Wow how complex. Not to say there is nothing to monopoly, but...
In view of the above, surely you would understand my concerns with just gulping down anything a poker player wants to say to convince everyone of how complex it is.
There are some things that are more complex than they appear on the surface. There are other things, like chess, that already are complex on the surface.
you are seriously comparing monopoly to poker?
I have to go with Modular on this one. you are an idiot. who has no idea what he's talking about.
See, you yourself are using your intuition. You have not seriously studied monopoly, yet you're making a judgment about it.
This is why I don't subscribe to the idea that one must study something seriously to make some sort of judgment about it.
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.
Which is not out line with anything else I said. You're assuming a somewhat linear skill progression, which is strange since you yourself seemed to be saying that at the very top level there is a ton of skill packed in ;)...
Being able to perform at 90% of Ivey's capacity for a winning result in a single heads up encounter is in no way is equivalent to absorbing 90% of everything Phil Ivey knows about Poker.