Is there any argument to be made for calling here?

[Marcotte]

[ QUOTE ]
This talk of chess and bridge is a distraction. I know the bridge analogies stripsqueez is trying to make but there is no good analogy I can think of in chess.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I understand this discussion (which isn't necessarily a given), then a chess example would be some sort of sacrifice or gambit. It could be as little as trading your bishop for his knight (on c6 or f6) or as big as sacrificing your queen to destroy his castled position.

[texasrattlers]

Sorry to pick up on this "distraction", but it really interests me.

It seems the key question in eastbay's situation is the CEV vs $EV question, as elucidated by several posters. However, I do not think the CEV vs. $EV has any application to chess. So, I do not think you can say sacrificing your Queen to destroy your opponent's castle position is negative CEV or negative anything because you are doing this because you have a well thought out plan of future moves that will ensure victory. So, just because you lose a "10 point piece" doesn't make it negative anything because all that counts is winning and the loss of your queen fits into your plan for winning. In a SNG your total points (chips) have value in and of themselves -- if you have a lot you can ease your way into the money or bully your way to 1st. A similar concept must apply in bridge. But in chess your points are meaninless -- all that matters is how your "assets" (whatever their point value) are strategically positioned on the board.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
Chip EV is used as a tool because its an easily calculated, standard starting point for discussion of the hand. You then apply whatever modifications are necessary. Much like point count at bridge

[/ QUOTE ]

my current bridge partner includes in the pre-alerts to our opponents "he uses the point count ranges on the card as a guide to his usual bid" - point count is a crappy tool because it doesnt describe accurately enough the value of high cards - i think the history of point count reveals that it exists in bridge theory because it makes the game easier to teach

someone has posted after running a computer simulation that its notionally right to call in this problem if your a 30% chance to win - my gut tells me its closer to 40% - chip EV is based on anything above 50% - seems to me that chip EV is a crappy tool too

[ QUOTE ]
$EV is just shorthand for "play which wins you money" or "play which loses you money", distinguishing that from chip EV - what terminology would you prefer us to use?

[/ QUOTE ]

how about right or wrong

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[ChrisV]

In the end chess is a deterministic game of complete information, so any sound sacrifice must necessarily be based on a winning series of moves.

However, while the top players can analyse variations many moves deep, even they often make decisions based on abstract considerations, patterns in the game. In a chess book I read once, Spassky commented on a knight sacrifice he made, saying it was "one of those sacrifices that need not be analysed thoroughly, since it is absolutely clear that Black is not in a position to defend his king". I think that if you want an analogy with chess, a sacrifice for an abstract positional advantage is a good one. In both cases the player is recognising that the material, mathematical advantage he is giving the other player is illusory and that actually he is the one getting the advantage.

It's a half truth to say that in SNGs your chips have value of themselves, just as it's a half truth in chess to say that pieces have value in and of themselves. Chips always have a value of some kind, but the value changes dramatically over the course of the SNG and not always in linear ways. For example, in the AA hand I gave earlier in the thread, your 5 chips have immense value because they're keeping you alive. However additional chips (the 15 you stand to win if you call and your AA holds up) have virtually zero value.

By the way, if anyone is interested in abstract strategic thinking in chess, I recommend the audio commented games of Josh Waitzkins in Chessmaster 8000 & 9000. He does the variation analyses so you dont have to, but more often he comments on the abstract ideas behind moves. I personally found it a lot more interesting than actually playing chess.

[Marcotte]

Admittedly, any comparison b/w chess and poker (or bridge) will be strained at best, simply because chess is a game of perfect information and card games are not.

Perhaps a better analogy would be where you sacrifice a piece to gain a small (i.e. not game winning) positional advantage - something like giving your opponent doubled pawns or a weak color complex in one sector (e.g. all queen side pawns on black squares).

So your ChipEV (# of pieces, their value, and their positional value) might go down, but your $EV (ie chance of winning the game) might go up.

Conversely, in poker you may fold J9s in your SB or BB to a Button or CO all-in because you will have a positional advantage in the next few hands.

Apologies for fueling the 'distraction', but I love chess. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
my current bridge partner includes in the pre-alerts to our opponents "he uses the point count ranges on the card as a guide to his usual bid" - point count is a crappy tool because it doesnt describe accurately enough the value of high cards - i think the history of point count reveals that it exists in bridge theory because it makes the game easier to teach

someone has posted after running a computer simulation that its notionally right to call in this problem if your a 30% chance to win - my gut tells me its closer to 40% - chip EV is based on anything above 50% - seems to me that chip EV is a crappy tool too

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely - which is why I made the analogy, I think it's a good one. Even though point count is a pretty awful way to rate bridge hands, people still define their bids in terms of point count because it's a standard way to talk about hand strength. Chip EV is a bad way to talk about SNG decisions - the independent chip model isn't all that great either - but both of them are approximate measurements, data points that can be incorporated into an analysis.

[texasrattlers]

[ QUOTE ]
Chip EV is a bad way to talk about SNG decisions - the independent chip model isn't all that great either - but both of them are approximate measurements, data points that can be incorporated into an analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if it's a bad way to talk about right vs. wrong decisions, why do it? If you start w/ questionable assumptions I don't have a lot of confidence in conclusions drawn from those assumptions. I have never much appreciated "It's a bad way to look at things, but it's all we got" arguments.