What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

To be more specific, why do so many good backgammon/chess/bridge players also make good poker players? I can see the game theory element, but poker seems to be different in that bluffing is a key part of the game, especially in NLHE. Maybe bluffing really isn't that big a part of the game ... maybe its just 15% of the game??? I was a really good backgammon player a couple of years ago (and to be honest I don't even know the rules anymore [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) and I have transitioned into being a pretty decent poker player. The things I see in common are game theory concepts and thriving on competition. But on the face of it bluffing should make poker an almost entirely differnt game.

As I think about it this ties into my still unresolved thoughts on position. I use position well, which of course involves a lot of bluffing, but if my opponents know I am just "using" position not necessarily with a strong hand why do they respect it so much?

Apologize for the rambling thoughts. I look forward to hearing your comments.


Best,

Tex

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

Situational equity.

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Situational equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds about right, but I've never heard this term before. Could you define it?

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

[ QUOTE ]
To be more specific, why do so many good backgammon/chess/bridge players also make good poker players?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do they? (outside of a couple of TV "names")

[ QUOTE ]
I can see the game theory element, but poker seems to be different in that bluffing is a key part of the game

[/ QUOTE ]
But of course .... how would one bluff when all the information needed for the correct decision is in plain view?

[ QUOTE ]
The things I see in common are game theory concepts

[/ QUOTE ]
Like what?

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

Backgammon and Poker are more closely related than Chess and Poker.

Chess is all about complete information and pure strategies. The only thing it may have in common is thinking a couple of moves ahead and what to do against "best" defense.

Backgammon on the other hand has mathematical analysis of random events and making decisions based on percentages, so it is very close to Poker. Knowing when to go all-in in Poker and knowing when to double in Backgammon is not that different.

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

I know many former backgammon and bridge-players that have become very good poker players, but I don't know anyone from chess.

Backgammon certainly have the equity element, even if it lacks much psychology; while high-level bridge, according to one bridge pro I discussed it with is very similar to poker (they assign players on hand ranges, they do deceiptive plays or pure bluffs etc.).

Chess on the other hand tends to appeal to very intelligent, systematic people. I don't think intelligence is among the most important traits to become a good poker player.

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

Ciaffone is an excellent Chess Player as well as a top poker pro and author

chess and poker
 

I can’t speak for backgammon and bridge players, but I can speak from a chess player’s perspective. I’m a winning poker player (but not good enough to brag about,) and I’m a class A chess player (again, not good enough to brag about IMO.) I just enjoy playing and studying both games.

First, I haven’t seen any real correlation between intelligence and chess ability. I know plenty of rocket scientists and math whizzes that study chess a lot and still can’t play a decent game. School studies say that kids who play chess do better in school because of what they learn, but I think chess sharpens their critical thinking skills and isn’t necessarily linked to intelligence. There are common traits of chess and poker that appeal to chess players. These are the traits that appeal to me:

1. Elements of the game. Chess players begin to learn chess by becoming familiar with certain patterns (piece movement, checkmating patterns, pawn formations, etc.) and tactics (forks, pins, skewers) that appear several times in games. Poker has similar recurrence of patterns (hitting a flop, reading a board) and tactics (checkraising, slowplaying, overcalling, etc.) that are used in various combinations to a player’s advantage.

2. Analytical nature of the game. Chess can be analyzed almost to infinity. Players identify strengths and weaknesses in their game by going over past games, preferably with someone of greater chess strength. Poker has a similar feature.

3. Learning from books. Most chess players I know read books and magazines to gain new insight into the game. Same with poker. When I started studying poker, reading a book was a natural way to begin the process. This is probably true for other board games, but maybe not for other endeavors.

As someone mentioned, Bob Ciaffone is an excellent poker and chess player. In one of his articles, Bob mentioned that Ken Smith (of Smith-Morra gambit fame) is also a good poker player. Dan Harrington is a chess master. I’ve seen GM Walter Browne playing 8-16 at Bellagio. A lot of my chess playing friends also play poker or have given up chess for poker.

ScottieK

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ciaffone is an excellent Chess Player as well as a top poker pro and author

[/ QUOTE ]

greg shahade (sp?) used to post on this forum a fair amount under his real name. from what i have heard he is a successful player in fairly high games. he is also an international master. maybe even a GM now.

Dan Harrington used to be an expert level chess player. he might have even been a USCF master.

Re: chess and poker
 

I'm a chess player from long ago, and your analysis rings true. Here are a couple other points to add.

Single-table SNGs remind me enormously of a serious chess game. They come in stages -- and you need to know how to transition between them.

1. Opening. Very formulaic. You can and should study what to do at the beginning. Play logically. Don't make mistakes. Be patient.

2. Middle game. Now you've got all your stuff in action and so does your opponent. It's parry-and-thrust time. You want to seize the initiative -- without being reckless. These are much more complex patterns, and we learn them by playing a lot and developing "intuitive" senses of when we're in command and when we need to back off.

3. End game. We're down to bare bones. Suddenly our risk tolerance changes. In chess, the king becomes an attacking piece. In poker, all sorts of hands that were insta-folds early on now ought to be pushed. . . . Tempo matters enormously, too. Zwischenzug and slow play are kindred concepts. Ditto for opposition and the gap concept.

Re: chess and poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a chess player from long ago, and your analysis rings true. Here are a couple other points to add.

Single-table SNGs remind me enormously of a serious chess game. They come in stages -- and you need to know how to transition between them.

1. Opening. Very formulaic. You can and should study what to do at the beginning. Play logically. Don't make mistakes. Be patient.

2. Middle game. Now you've got all your stuff in action and so does your opponent. It's parry-and-thrust time. You want to seize the initiative -- without being reckless. These are much more complex patterns, and we learn them by playing a lot and developing "intuitive" senses of when we're in command and when we need to back off.

3. End game. We're down to bare bones. Suddenly our risk tolerance changes. In chess, the king becomes an attacking piece. In poker, all sorts of hands that were insta-folds early on now ought to be pushed. . . . Tempo matters enormously, too. Zwischenzug and slow play are kindred concepts. Ditto for opposition and the gap concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense. Maybe that's why I feel like I'm much better at single table SNGs than regular limit play. Get through the opening to a playable middlegame (don't lose a lot of chips or go bust early.) In the middlegame, accumulate small advantages (steal blinds, win small pots) and be alert to tactical opportunities that win material (win a lot of chips.) Use counterplay to meet an attack (reraise, bluff.) Defend when necessary (fold.) Convert your advantages in the endgame and deliver checkmate (lean on your opponent until he loses all his chips.)

NH

ScottieK

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

Oh yeah, forgot about Greg. Greg's an IM last I knew. Harrington's a USCF master.

ScottieK

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

I thought Harrington's co-author (B. Robertie) played some poker but it doesn't mention any poker in HOH, just his backgammon and chess background.

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

It sounds like you are overemphasizing bluffing.

It's common for casual players to imagine that poker is all about bluffing, and to imagine that bluffing is not mathematical. That's part of why playing against casual players is so profitable.

[ QUOTE ]
I use position well, which of course involves a lot of bluffing, but if my opponents know I am just "using" position not necessarily with a strong hand why do they respect it so much?

[/ QUOTE ]
Position does allow you to make some bluffs. However, it also allows you to get more value from your hands when you are ahead, and to lose less when you are behind. Many hands have to be thrown away OOP but can be played in position because you can expect to win more when your hand is good (or your draw hits) in position, and you will lose less when your hand is not good.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?

[/ QUOTE ]
Skills in games are correlated even more generally. It is important to recognize a strong situation. To play games of skill and chance well, you need to focus on making the right play regardless of the luck.

The doubling cube forces backgammon players to make judgements about the absolute equities, not just the relative equities. Backgammon players are used to accepting doubles knowing that they are significant underdogs, but not enough of one to pass, which is a lot like calling in poker.

The inferences bridge players make about opponents' hands from the past actions are crucial, and very similar to extracting information from the action in poker to fold or check behind with a strong hand or value bet with a mediocre hand. Bridge experts play for a particular contract or overtrick not because they are sure to be rewarded, but because the rewards justify the risks.

Playing chess well involves planning and evaluation, but another important skill some chess players have is the ability to recognize that they make many mistakes. Chess players also recognize that they can improve their game through study, and chess players tend to study more for each hour of play than in most other games.

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Situational equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds about right, but I've never heard this term before. Could you define it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the way Gus Hansen looks at it:

1) Made hand equity

2) Draw equity

3) Steal (fold/bluffing) equity

4) Stack equity (for tourneys where the question is does your stack size allow you to wait for a better hand)

When you evaluate your position regarding your hand versus a certain board with more cards to come, you evaluate the equity of your hand from the above perspectives to see whether it is strong enough to bet, to call, to raise, to perhaps just check/call, or whether it should be folded, depending on what hands you put your opponents on (the more players in a pot, the more mathematically correct you should just play). A lot of this depends on stack sizes in big bet games which is all I play.

Pot-limit omaha gives the best example of these things to my mind. You can have a weak made hand that is currently beating a draw, such as an overpair, but really is not strong enough to bet. And you can have draws that are so weak they should be folded or should just take a free card if given, and other draws that are strong enough to call even if you were sure you were up against a set. And there are rare draws so strong that they are favorites over a set and thus should raise even knowing you are currently behind. With most good but not great draws, you should just call, unless you put your opponent on a hand he could fold in which case raising can generate fold equity for your hand.

And whether you should call with a good but not great draw depends upon having the ability to make a full pot size bet if you hit (implied odds), which in the case of a small stack held by either player would not be so, nor in the case of drawing against a tight enough player who will not pay you off on the river, or even on the turn to fill when he is getting inadequate odds to do so. And in the case of multiway action, or even headsup, your draw equity could be a lot less than what you might think if you are up against another draw, particularly if you don't have a pair to go with it (but if you were against a set then you would rather have an additional drawing card rather than a pair).

pzhon's comments about the doubling cube in backgammon thus apply very well to big bet poker where you can be correct in calling even as a current dog. Of critical importance also is that you and your opponents have to not just consider the size of the current bet being faced, but that of future bets where the action is effectively being multiplied by the action on every street. And regarding chess, you should be able to analyze your position to see if you have a reasonable chance to win or draw against a capable opponent or whether you should just resign. Chess of course is different in that it is a game of perfect information and there is no doubling. With backgammon, even though it is a game of perfect information, the dice introduce a certain element of luck, which may or may not often be able to turn a currently unfavorable position into a winner with good playing ability.

With poker obviously, a lot depends on knowing your opponents and being able to read their range of hands well in order to be able to as accurately as possible assess the equities involved when there is an element of doubt from not knowing their holdings with certainty.

Re: chess and poker
 

Personally I think being a good poker player and having a chess history doesn't tell us much other than the obvious. Being good at chess shows that you have above average intelligence and that doesn't exactly hurt your poker game.

Poker and chess really don't have anything in common. In chess you can win (draw) by always playing the best move and this best move (usually) does exist. You don't have to adapt to the opponent at all. In poker this doesn't work, since there is no pure strategy. Exactly that's the reason why computers can't play poker at world class level and never will.

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

Howard Lederer is well known for playing chess and was considered a chess prodigy as a young man. Also, Tuan Le lists his main hobby as chess, which I find interesting given that he is such an aggressive bluffer.

Re: chess and poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Poker and chess really don't have anything in common. In chess you can win (draw) by always playing the best move and this best move (usually) does exist. You don't have to adapt to the opponent at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I beg to differ!

Once you're 10 or 12 moves into a chess game, there's usually no consensus about the "best" move. There are multiple "lines" at your choosing that will take you into different kinds of middle games. (Somewhat similar to poker.) Chess pundits are arguing constantly about the merits of these different lines, and most of the arguments aren't fully settled. If you and your opponent are reasonably close in skill, you want to head into a line that plays to your strengths and exploits his shortcomings.

In chess: Are you the better tactician? Look for something sharp and double-edged that may let you close in for the kill within a dozen moves.

Are you better at slow positional struggles? Keep the position closed and try to outmaneuver your opponent over 40 moves.

Who's got more/less time on the clock? This has intriguing parallels to stack sizes in poker. If you've got more time in chess, you want to keep the position as complex as possible. Let the other guy make a mistake in time pressure. If you're tight on time, look for ways to simplify until you're into an endgame that plays itself.

Overall, I'd say reading opponents is 30% of what shapes your decisions in chess and a higher percentage in poker. So you're right on your second point that poker is a harder game for computers to master. But unlike checkers -- where computers really have established the best moves in most situations -- chess still has a good bit of room left for human judgment.

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To be more specific, why do so many good backgammon/chess/bridge players also make good poker players?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do they? (outside of a couple of TV "names")

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably at a higher rate than people who aren't good at those games. There are still those who play badly (and think that they are much better than they really are).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can see the game theory element, but poker seems to be different in that bluffing is a key part of the game

[/ QUOTE ]
But of course .... how would one bluff when all the information needed for the correct decision is in plain view?

[/ QUOTE ]

That certainly isn't even close to the case in bridge. Bluffing in called a psychic during the bidding or a falsecard during the play. Psychics are less prevalent in US tournament bridge than they used to be because the governing body has taken steps against them (among the many foolish things they have done).

A similar concept between bridge and poker is putting people on a range of hands based on the prior action. You need to do this during the auction and you need to do it during the play.

Re: chess and poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker and chess really don't have anything in common. In chess you can win (draw) by always playing the best move and this best move (usually) does exist. You don't have to adapt to the opponent at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I beg to differ!

Once you're 10 or 12 moves into a chess game, there's usually no consensus about the "best" move. There are multiple "lines" at your choosing that will take you into different kinds of middle games. (Somewhat similar to poker.) Chess pundits are arguing constantly about the merits of these different lines, and most of the arguments aren't fully settled. If you and your opponent are reasonably close in skill, you want to head into a line that plays to your strengths and exploits his shortcomings.

In chess: Are you the better tactician? Look for something sharp and double-edged that may let you close in for the kill within a dozen moves.

Are you better at slow positional struggles? Keep the position closed and try to outmaneuver your opponent over 40 moves.

Who's got more/less time on the clock? This has intriguing parallels to stack sizes in poker. If you've got more time in chess, you want to keep the position as complex as possible. Let the other guy make a mistake in time pressure. If you're tight on time, look for ways to simplify until you're into an endgame that plays itself.

Overall, I'd say reading opponents is 30% of what shapes your decisions in chess and a higher percentage in poker. So you're right on your second point that poker is a harder game for computers to master. But unlike checkers -- where computers really have established the best moves in most situations -- chess still has a good bit of room left for human judgment.

[/ QUOTE ]

NH

Related to your tactician / positional play point. Initiative in chess is the counterpart to aggressive play in poker. Also, different styles (super-aggressive / gambiteer, conservative / positional grinder) are apparent in both games. Good players can win in both games with different styles.

Like poker moves, chess moves can be analyzed post-mortem. In the heat of battle, finding the best move can be easy (betting a nut, delivering checkmate) or difficult (lead out or checkraise, advance or regroup, etc.) Sometimes, what you think is a really good moves turns out to be a lemon in post-mortem, even in chess.

I would argue that stack size is the counterpart to material in chess, but I found your clock analogy interesting.

Bluffing could equate with sacrificing material in attack. If you make your opponent fold or your opponent doesn't find the right defense, then you look like a genius. If he calls you down or does find the right line, goat.

ScottieK

Re: chess and poker
 

Even though I tried at one point, I never got really good at chess. I seemed to have taken to backgammon and poker a lot better for whatever reason. But I was surprised by your comment about reading your opponent in chess:

[ QUOTE ]
Overall, I'd say reading opponents is 30% of what shapes your decisions in chess

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but I didn't think Big Blue had any opponent reading built into it. It just analyzed the current board and made the best play, regardless of its opponent's past actions. And of course it was able to beat the world champ. Can computers still beat the best in chess? Do they read their opponents' tendencies or just make the "optimal" play based on the board?

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

[ QUOTE ]
To be more specific, why do so many good backgammon/chess/bridge players also make good poker players?

[/ QUOTE ]Some people are simply good at games. I suspect that someone who is good at poker or bridge could become good at gin rummy, for instance.

There don't seem to be many who are great at two (or more) of these games. Though I suppose it depends on your criteria for "great". There's no present day Oswald Jacoby, for instance. And, it's been a while since Billy Eisenberg was at the top of bridge and backgammon.

Re: chess and poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even though I tried at one point, I never got really good at chess. I seemed to have taken to backgammon and poker a lot better for whatever reason. But I was surprised by your comment about reading your opponent in chess:

[ QUOTE ]
Overall, I'd say reading opponents is 30% of what shapes your decisions in chess

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but I didn't think Big Blue had any opponent reading built into it. It just analyzed the current board and made the best play, regardless of its opponent's past actions. And of course it was able to beat the world champ. Can computers still beat the best in chess? Do they read their opponents' tendencies or just make the "optimal" play based on the board?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without getting too much into the Kasparov vs. Deep Blue match, Kasparov's style exerts enormous psychological pressure on his opponents because he is a relentless attacker and wonderful tactician. Obviously, a computer feels no pressure, has no regard for the reputation of its opponent, and almost never miscalculates tactical combinations. Although Kasparov won the first Deep Blue match, the IBM developers worked hard to update the computer's opening repertoire and move selection algorithm. One of the keys in the second match was that the computer would calculate at 12 ply (6 move pairs.) If Kasparov made a move the computer expected, it would play the next move in its +EV sequence almost immediately. This time-saving strategy put enormous pressure on Kasparov because he did not have as much time to calculate deep lines as he would against a human opponent.

The last major computer vs. human match I've heard of was GM Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz - the "Brains in Bahrain" competition. Kramnik won 6-2, with no losses. Kramnik's deeply positional style yielded few tactical opportunities for the computer. A computer's move selection algorithm will always play the most +EV move in the same position, regardless of its opponent. I suppose the algorithm could be personalized based on the opponent.

If I'm playing someone I don't know, then it's hard to make a "read" that influences my move selection. Just because my opponent plays a defensive opening doesn't mean he's incapable of attacking. However, chess history is full of stories of match opponent preparation designed to exploit specific weaknesses. At that level of play, move A in a certain position may work against one player while move B in the same position may be preferable against another player. In that case, moves are dependent on "reading the opponent." The difference is that these reads are made before the game instead of during the game.

ScottieK

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

I think there are a lot of thought techniques that carry over from bridge to poker. I play high level bridge (in the UK) and a lot of my bridge playing friends who move to poker take it up quicker than my non-bridge playing friends. I am still better at bridge than i am at poker, but compared to my friends who started getting into poker around the same time, i am far ahead of them. Some of the reasons i think are:

1) Like other people mentioned there are forms of bluffing in bridge, and the key to getting these to work is not to make a bluff (either a misleading bid or a misleading card) because you don't see any other way of winning, but to try and mislead your opponents itno thinking you have something different to what you have. In poker a lot of begginers bluff on the river, because they see no other way of taking the pot down, but playing bridge gives you this 'false picture' philosophy. You have to try and represent something with your bluff, not just bluff for the sake of it. Sometimes this means planning to bluff a few rounds earlier than you make the bluff.

2)Odds and percentages are built into you at high level bridge. Counting and analysing your chances come so quickly once you have practiced and played 1000's of hands. People who haven't done things like this before, stuggle with all the quick maths that poker throws up at you, and esp. playing online where you have a time limit. For example, someone goes all in post flop and everyone else folds to you. You first have to analyize what your opponent has (a skill needed in bridge too) and then decide what your chances of beating him are compared to the pot odds. You may have a flush draw and one overcard, and can deduce that from his all in that he hasn't hit a set, but best guess top pair.You now need to count your outs, work out the chances of hitting them and then work out the pot odds. Since you only have a limited time online, people who aren't used to processing odds and percentages quickly, or those people who can't assess thier opponents hands, will make more mistakes until they have developed these skills. Skills that playing bridge at high levels come naturally.

There aren't the only similarities, but they explain why most bridge players adapt to poker quicker than someone who hasn't aquired these skills.

Eggpie

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There don't seem to be many who are great at two (or more) of these games. Though I suppose it depends on your criteria for "great". There's no present day Oswald Jacoby, for instance. And, it's been a while since Billy Eisenberg was at the top of bridge and backgammon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kit Woolsey is suddenly chopped liver? If he doesn't qualify, then your standards are absurdly high.

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

Being a lifetime chessplayer myself here is what chess brings over to poker

1. Being used to analysing the game, questioning decitions and studying the games of stronger players

2. Addapting to opponents .. When you are about to face a player first thing you ask is, what is his style, and what are his strenghts. And then you tailor your opening game and approch to him, so that you maximize the chances of him not playing his best game.


3. Desperado plays in lost situations .. you also bluff in chess

4. Using drawoffers as a psykological weapon .. and other mindgames

5. But most important .. In chess when ahead it is vital to keep applying pressure ... never give time for your opponents to relax, just keep pushing til they fall apart




But similarites between chess and poker IMO come down to The Psykology bit and being used to approching the game in a structured way while studying it. (And of course countless postmortems after playing a chessgame spills over to rethinking and reviewing your poker hands or tourneys after you have played them ... a sound thing to do, all the time questioning your own play ... always asking, where could I have played better ??)

Re: chess and poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even though I tried at one point, I never got really good at chess. I seemed to have taken to backgammon and poker a lot better for whatever reason. But I was surprised by your comment about reading your opponent in chess:

[ QUOTE ]
Overall, I'd say reading opponents is 30% of what shapes your decisions in chess

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but I didn't think Big Blue had any opponent reading built into it. It just analyzed the current board and made the best play, regardless of its opponent's past actions. And of course it was able to beat the world champ. Can computers still beat the best in chess? Do they read their opponents' tendencies or just make the "optimal" play based on the board?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without getting too much into the Kasparov vs. Deep Blue match, Kasparov's style exerts enormous psychological pressure on his opponents because he is a relentless attacker and wonderful tactician. Obviously, a computer feels no pressure, has no regard for the reputation of its opponent, and almost never miscalculates tactical combinations. Although Kasparov won the first Deep Blue match, the IBM developers worked hard to update the computer's opening repertoire and move selection algorithm. One of the keys in the second match was that the computer would calculate at 12 ply (6 move pairs.) If Kasparov made a move the computer expected, it would play the next move in its +EV sequence almost immediately. This time-saving strategy put enormous pressure on Kasparov because he did not have as much time to calculate deep lines as he would against a human opponent.

The last major computer vs. human match I've heard of was GM Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz - the "Brains in Bahrain" competition. Kramnik won 6-2, with no losses. Kramnik's deeply positional style yielded few tactical opportunities for the computer. A computer's move selection algorithm will always play the most +EV move in the same position, regardless of its opponent. I suppose the algorithm could be personalized based on the opponent.

If I'm playing someone I don't know, then it's hard to make a "read" that influences my move selection. Just because my opponent plays a defensive opening doesn't mean he's incapable of attacking. However, chess history is full of stories of match opponent preparation designed to exploit specific weaknesses. At that level of play, move A in a certain position may work against one player while move B in the same position may be preferable against another player. In that case, moves are dependent on "reading the opponent." The difference is that these reads are made before the game instead of during the game.

ScottieK

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about scott?
Im almost certain the match finnished 3-3 with one loss for each side.
I agree on the other part on the post though. Much in chess is read dependent or just striving for positions where you play at your best. You play the player very very much in chess.

Re: chess and poker
 

[ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about scott?
Im almost certain the match finnished 3-3 with one loss for each side.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what I'm talking about. I guess I read the crosstable wrong. The Kramnik - Deep Fritz match was tied 4-4. My mistake.

ScottieK

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There don't seem to be many who are great at two (or more) of these games. Though I suppose it depends on your criteria for "great". There's no present day Oswald Jacoby, for instance. And, it's been a while since Billy Eisenberg was at the top of bridge and backgammon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dan Harrington is certainly a great poker player, and the fact that he's won the World Cup in Backgammon (the most important tournament in the game, one that, according to Robertie, no one but a top world-class pro has -ever- won due to the extreme length of the matches required to win it) I think qualifies him as a backgammon great as well. As for his chess abilities, USCF Master rating certainly qualifies him as very, very good, but probably below what would be termed "great" in that game (GM rating or so). Still, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

--Scott

--

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There don't seem to be many who are great at two (or more) of these games. Though I suppose it depends on your criteria for "great". There's no present day Oswald Jacoby, for instance. And, it's been a while since Billy Eisenberg was at the top of bridge and backgammon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kit Woolsey is suddenly chopped liver? If he doesn't qualify, then your standards are absurdly high.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think anyone seriously considers Woolsey a top 10 in the world bridge player. I don't know about backgammon. Eisenberg was once at that level (in fact, I believe he simultanously held world championship titles in both bridge and backgammon). Woolsey certainly doesn't measure up to that standard.

I was not aware that Harrington had won a world championship in backgammon. If that is true, I would consider him in Eisenberg's class.

Re: chess and poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
I’ve seen GM Walter Browne playing 8-16 at Bellagio.

[/ QUOTE ]

Walter is a prop player at the Oaks Club in Emeryville, California. He's a fixture in the Oaks' 15-30 hold'em game during the graveyard shift. He's a good player and a nice guy. I like playing with him, however much I don't like having a player as good as he is in the game.

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

The connection between poker and the other games is that poker provides an opportunity for dedicated game-players to earn something resembling a steady income. Anyone with half a brain can learn enough about poker to beat the locally available games. It's a lot tougher to make a living hustling at chess than poker. I imagine it's tougher to make a living at backgammon, too. I have no idea if it's even possible to make a living playing bridge.

A player who is devoting her life to her game and needs to make ends meet, working flexible hours, earning perhaps enough to get by rather than needing middle-class comfort, could play poker for a night or two each week and spend the rest of her time focussing on the game where her real passion lies.

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone seriously considers Woolsey a top 10 in the world bridge player. I don't know about backgammon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kit Woolsey is almost certainly considered one of the top 10 backgammon players in the world, as well as one of the game's most recognized and trusted authorities, along with Robertie and X-22. Don't know about his abilities in bridge, although he's certainly very good.

[ QUOTE ]
I was not aware that Harrington had won a world championship in backgammon. If that is true, I would consider him in Eisenberg's class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not the "World Championship" (Monte Carlo) per se, but the "World Cup" (Dallas), which is considered by backgammon aficionados to be much tougher to win than the world championship (in the championship flight, EVERY MATCH is best 3-out-of-5 matches to 11 points, and even the consolation and last-chance flights are matches to 29 and 25 points, respectively). Robertie and X-22 have both won the Monte Carlo event (Robertie's won it twice), while Harrington has won the Dallas event (Robertie and X-22 may also have won it, can't remember off the top of my head).

Speaking of Magriel, where is he in this conversation? One of the greatest backgammon players of all time, indisputably, as well as a very good-to-great tournament poker player, and a chess master as well.

--Scott

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

Lot of good answers in this thread so far. To briefly, reiterate some highlights: the doubling cube in backgammon is a whooole lot like raise/fold decisions in poker; bluffing is overrated in popular opinion of poker, and underrated in bridge; all three games have a big element of estimating chances of things on the fly.

And then there's there is the one REALLY big point, which AlanBostick has finally touched on:

[ QUOTE ]
The connection between poker and the other games is that poker provides an opportunity for dedicated game-players to earn something resembling a steady income.


[/ QUOTE ]

Biinnnnngo. Poker is where da money is at.

I've been giving bridge lessons for almost ten years, directed at a local club for awhile, etc etc, known regionally as an expert but not nationally -- and, in my best season, bridge was 10% of my income. If I lived in a big city, it could have been maybe 25%.

And six months after I played my first hand of 25/50 cent limit poker on the internet, I was making more money from poker than I ever had from bridge. I am no expert at poker yet; I don't honestly think the game is anything close to as much fun as bridge and backgammon are. But it's not a bad way to spend the evenings I don't have a bridge game, and the money is nice.

Take a look in your history books, folks. Bridge was where the money was at in the 1950s, and backgammon in the 70s. Look no further for an explanation for why the bridge pros got good at backgammon then, and why the backgammon pros are getting good at poker now.



Incidentally ... about the analogy between SnG strategy and a chess game. Interesting thing. I've never been able to stand chess. Feels like a big boring game of tic-tac-toe to me, honestly. Just a matter of taste.

In bridge I prefer duplicate to rubber, and matchpoint to IMP scoring, because it puts every deal on an equal footing. It is no coincidence that I like limit better than NL, and ring games better than tournaments -- formats where a few big hands determine the outcome of the whole event.

Re: chess and poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’ve seen GM Walter Browne playing 8-16 at Bellagio.

[/ QUOTE ]

Walter is a prop player at the Oaks Club in Emeryville, California. He's a fixture in the Oaks' 15-30 hold'em game during the graveyard shift. He's a good player and a nice guy. I like playing with him, however much I don't like having a player as good as he is in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how many chess pros make their money these days. Actually I picked up poker after GM Gustafsson mentioned this trend on ICC.

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Kit Woolsey is almost certainly considered one of the top 10 backgammon players in the world, as well as one of the game's most recognized and trusted authorities, along with Robertie and X-22. Don't know about his abilities in bridge, although he's certainly very good.

[/ QUOTE ]
Woolsey is a notch below world class/top 10 type in bridge. He's very good -- has won national championships -- but not quite amongst the elite in the world. Like in backgammon, he is a trusted authority and valued author. Perhaps not labeling him as great in both was overly harsh.

His wife, Sally, is also quite good at both bridge and backgammon, isn't she?

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Woolsey is a notch below world class/top 10 type in bridge. He's very good -- has won national championships -- but not quite amongst the elite in the world. Like in backgammon, he is a trusted authority and valued author. Perhaps not labeling him as great in both was overly harsh.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that only the top ten bridge players in the world are "world class". Off the top of my head, among American players, I would list Hamman, Wolff, Soloway, Berkowitz, L. Cohen, Martel, Stansby, Meckstroth, Rodwell, Rosenberg. Those are just US players. Any list of world class players that doesn't include all of them is a bad list. There are many players who probably warrant consideration for that list as well (this is just off the top of my head). It didn't include multiple world champion Mike Lawrence, for example.

Woolsey, at very least, has a second in a Bermuda Bowl and a first in the Rosenblum Teams. He wrote THE book on matchpoints, and it continues to be the best book available on the subject despite being written over 20 years ago. Since he is a matchpoint theorist, I'd look to how he did at matchpoints events. He has won the Cavendish invitational at least twice, with different partners!

I'm not current with the US qualifiers for the next Bermuda Bowl. My current issue of the Bridge World does have Kit still playing on one of the final four teams vying for a spot.

If David Sklansky is a world class poker player, then Kit Woolsey is a world class bridge player.

Re: What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If David Sklansky is a world class poker player,

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I suppose that one is up for debate, too!