[dragon14]

Yes Michael, it was cold and calculating how he admitted to having a losing year for the first time ever. Everybody surely reads the NY Daily News, right Michael. It's the best known NY paper, right Michael. Doyle knew that all weak rich players read the NY Daily News and planted the story. Give me a break.

At chess the top players lose their titles to younger players because they can't calculate as quickly as they did when they were younger.

If we're talking the highest stakes of poker it seems logical that the best players in their 20's, 30's and 40's get the best of Doyle through quicker thinking. Mason Malmuth has an essay in his Poker Essays books where he theorizes that speed of thought is what separates a good 20-40 from a good 100-200 player.

Whereas nearly every other poster's answer to this thread is along the lines of "I bet it's Phil Hellmuth", I've provided direct quotes from a player in the big game that he's losing and a solid theory of why Sklansky would not want to mention his name.

If you guys wish to worship Doyle that's fine. Even Kasparov, considered the greatest chess player ever, lost the chess championship a few years ago. The player who beat him was significantly younger.