Phil Ivey vs. Magnus Carlsen..poker and chess

@194

A good post to the contrary at last, showing some understanding!

Yes, a better player wont have the same winning percentage in poker as someone the same degree better in chess. That doesn't really show that there's more skill in one, just that ability has a greater impact on results, on which point I agree.

Also, I've never claimed poker is more complicated than chess. It's impossible to compare due to the natures of the games. It's just a lot more complex than most give it credit for.

The only point I'm making here is quite narrow.  Implying Poker is more complex because it has more random and "human decision" factors involved is not really correct.  Something that the coin flip example makes clear.  Nobody was comparing the complexity of Poker directly to a coin flip (well, not I, anyway).  Sometimes you need a reductio ad absurdum to highlight a distinction...

Scottrf already mentioned he was not enamored of this particular point ;), so, no real point in pursuing it.

To be fair though, do you buy the electric company to complete a set with only $300 left if you have 2 of the 3 oranges?

Yeah and adding 10^60 more "cards" might make it more complex too

There are more poker positions than chess positions.

Thank you for blessing us with your almighty presence, keeper of all knowledge.  Obviously talent manifests itself in different ways depending on what you're talking about.  None of the things you listed are things that can't be learned, and thus I disagree that they have anything to do with natural talent.  Most of those you could umbrella under simply "intelligence," which is naturally variable.  

Chess talent on the other hand, cannot be learned, or even close.  This is why there are chess prodigies.  There is not such thing as a poker prodigy, or ANY gambling prodigy.  

So you think Stu Ungar is comparable to Magnus Carlsen?  Both have the same predisposed amount of talent at their respective crafts?  

I guess that depends on how many decks of cards someone can successfully count before losing track before you call them a prodigy ;)...

"There is not such thing as a poker prodigy, or ANY gambling prodigy."

Probably because such a thing is illegal :)

"Obviously talent manifests itself in different ways depending on what you're talking about.  None of the things you listed are things that can't be learned, and thus I disagree that they have anything to do with natural talent."

False dichotomy.

Just because something can be learned doesn't mean it has nothing to do with natural talent.  People can be taught to read music, heck, they can even be taught to compose music; does that mean Mozart had no natural talent?  People can be taught to play good baseball; does that mean Derek Jeter had no natural talent?  Conversely, I can be taught to cook at least edible food, but I can guarantee you I have no natural talent in the kitchen.

"People can be taught to read music, heck, they can even be taught to compose music; does that mean Mozart had no natural talent?"

Some people do argue that, that what we perceive to be talent is just the result of a ton of practice to the point where it merely looks natural.

Of course this doesn't explain how people can have such different interests. So the nature nurture thing is always a matter of degree. Maybe it's more nature than we think; maybe it's more nurture than we think. It's hard to say.

"Some people do argue that, that what we perceive to be talent is just the result of a ton of practice to the point where it merely looks natural."

Except Mozart was touring Europe as a performer at age 5, and composing symphonies at age 8.  Not much time to practice.

I'm not quite sure why the issue of prodigies came up at all, though.  There are lots of natural talents that don't materialize at a very young age.

To play devil's advocate, we need not assume that even at this young age Mozart wasn't squeezing in time to practice.

Personally I think complex skills simply can only be had through practicing for a distinguished amount of time, the kind of time such that you couldn't learn it overnight. It's just (way) too complex for anyone on a humanly level to just figure out the first time they see it, even if they're brilliant.

However, that's not to say that talent won't help, or that practicing will guarantee you anything.

I do admit that I overlooked the legality factor of poker and how it would affect the development of skill in youth...I live in Wisconsin and a lot of things are somewhat socially acceptable here that aren't quite the norm, lol...(getting blackout drunk, driving drunk, gambling, etc).  

Having just finished a class where my final project was to analyze Mozart's String Quartet No. 3 in G Major ;)...I would say he had natural talent.  This would also be true of many musicians that knowingly avoid learning music theory (believing that knowing how other people write music and corming to those standards would deaden their own creativity).  

Paul McCartney and Jimi Hendrix would be 2 good examples...

You're really going to compare an average person's musical compositional ability, even upon YEARS of instruction, to that of Mozart?  I am a decent baseball player(when I was a teenager I guess).  Am I even remotely in discussion with Jeter?  Of course not.  Talent.  It seems like you are making my point for me.  What I said was not a false dichotomy...what you listed were essentially personality traits.  How do you define what one possesses to be able to write a composition like Beethoven?  It obviously isn't just being "taught to write music."  Whereas Poker, I think if one possesses certain advantageous traits, such as perception, deception, cunning, and ability to remain stoic, one could essentially "learn" poker and become very proficient.  

You could say the same aboit the traits that make Jeter good in baseball. They are just easier for you to recognise there.

You see talent in the area you know, doesn't mean you should deny it in other areas.

Just taking a balanced view here, while I don't believe everyone is the same and so believe something like talent exists, there is something to be said for the specificity of an activity one masters. I once read that a professional ping pong player had his reflexes tested along with many of his fellow pro players in that area (I suppose, maybe they're on a team or something). It was some sort of minigame where you just reacted to what's on screen. He did the worst at that out of everybody, yet he was known for having the fastest reactions on the "team," that is, he could get ready to hit back a ball more quickly than the others, which would have seemed to suggest he had better reflexes.

It seems like what really helps him hit the ball back so fast is his experience; knowing what to expect. Knowing what it looks like when his opponent is going to hit it at a certain speed, in a certain direction, with a certain spin.

I know that's not very scientific, but I thought it was kind of cute how you can be quite bad at some kinds of "reflexes" but good at (very) specific ones in which you understand their underlying nature. Many quick reactions are not really reflexes but the result of our intuition noticing the important information. For someone who knows nothing about ping pong, their opponent's shot will be unpredictable, but for someone who knows the game, the subtlest movements will instinctively clue in the mind about what to do in the near future.

The "complex" issue is pretty silly on its face. Chess is a closed system. Poker is a vague definition of a kind of game. There are poker games that are clearly simpler than chess (the three card toy game, very short staked no limit holdem), and those where it is not as clear (deep stacked nine player NLHE).

All the the "chess is obviously more complex" arguments seem to break down to incredulity and/or mistaking short term chance for skill... The only nearly objective thing is that a chess program can crush any chess player alive, where programming a computer to do the same at poker has not yet reached that point.

Also is the issue of how we judge this. I'm terrible by any sane serious chess player standard, but I generally crush people that rarely play and have never studied or looked into chess. We tend to just not consider those people when thinking about chess skill. They don't play in tournaments, in clubs, or even very often at all. 

Poker is mostly those people, as that short term luck factor allows a lot of clueless people the illusion of success so they return, and really, maybe 100 hours of instruction is all that is needed in either game to have a significant edge over those with no real clue. Getting anywhere close to expert status is a whole different animal. Being the equal of a grandmaster is no sure thing in either game no matter how hard one works...

The only nearly objective thing is that a chess program can crush any chess player alive, where programming a computer to do the same at poker has not yet reached that point.

This argument doesn't mean anything at all relative to human skill at the two games, nor a computer's general ability to handle "smart" stuff that humans do.  A computer can compare DNA sequences a lot more easily than it can recognize faces accurately...yet you won't find anyone saying that this makes facial recognition more complex.  Humans are analog and everything a human does requires relative comparisons by degrees to past experiences.  

Computers are digital.  Requiring "analog" judgments makes something more complex for computers to handle.  This says nothing about how hard that same task might be for humans to handle.  Computers handle "analog" situations by massive data analysis and trending that eventually quantifies the qualifiable.  

Having been a datawarehousing type in a past life ;)...I am pretty surprised that a large scale online poker site has not already cracked this nut with the data they have access to...but then again, what is their incentive to do so?

Chess is a game.  Computers "busted" the top GMs a while ago, but the "game" goes on.  If people use engines online, they might bet banned from playing.  Poker is another animal.  If a poker engine "busts" Texas Hold 'Em...cheating at the tables becomes rampant, and online it's even worse...everybody stops making money overnight...

So, I don't see those sites that have the requisite data doing much with it towards creating such an engine ;)...the only people who would want to make such a thing have no access to that massive amount of statistical data.