Goofy Games

[gumpzilla]

Then where are the skills of big mixed game players coming from now? How did they learn these skills? What is it about these games that you are proposing that make it so that long-term (I'll definitely concede that a practiced analytical player should do better at least for a while) the top notch players now can't eventually reclaim their spots? You haven't convinced me that these games are so much more mathematically forbidding that a similar level of intuition can be built up in them, and I'd frankly be surprised if that was true. Perhaps it will just take too long to be practical, but I don't think that's the same thing.

For some reason this reminds me of debates you see sometimes about where Paul Morphy (or Capablanca, or Alekhine, etc.) would fit in the chess world if they came back today. The stock response is that the enormous explosion in opening theory and analysis thanks to modern technology would leave him out in the cold. On the other hand, if he was such a spectacular talent that he could crush the opposition of that time handily without much study, doesn't it seem likely that he could stand a very good chance of clawing his way to the top of the modern hierarchy?

[chuddo]

"would the USA even win a bronze medal?"
---
it is likely that they would. why? because the basis for the game still has a number of the same skills: dribbling, passing, defense, etc.

just like a changed game still would have a number of the basic skills necessary to be a winning player. and the best players in the world have these skills in spades.

do you see now?

p.s. "analogies make for shitty arguments"

[danvh]

[ QUOTE ]
"would the USA even win a bronze medal?"
---
To continue with this analogy, wasnt one of the big reasons the US has not excelled in recent years in International competition due to changes in rules that the players could not adapt to? Their style is more of a 1 on 1 based game, while international rules change the congestion in the lane, as well as the length of 3 pointers amoung other variables including a more passing oriented Euro style of play prevelent in international competition.

[tengam]

I disagree with the hypothesis that changing the games would create a large "changing of the guard" at the top of poker. My reasons for this are from my experience being around the compeditive video game community. Due to the nature of videogames, the games change very frequently. The core skills remain the same, but every few years the details all change. Again and again, the top players rise to the top from game to game, and they are usually the same players as before. Those core skills are more important than the details.

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[TheShootah]

[ QUOTE ]
Then where are the skills of big mixed game players coming from now? How did they learn these skills? What is it about these games that you are proposing that make it so that long-term (I'll definitely concede that a practiced analytical player should do better at least for a while) the top notch players now can't eventually reclaim their spots? You haven't convinced me that these games are so much more mathematically forbidding that a similar level of intuition can be built up in them, and I'd frankly be surprised if that was true. Perhaps it will just take too long to be practical, but I don't think that's the same thing.

For some reason this reminds me of debates you see sometimes about where Paul Morphy (or Capablanca, or Alekhine, etc.) would fit in the chess world if they came back today. The stock response is that the enormous explosion in opening theory and analysis thanks to modern technology would leave him out in the cold. On the other hand, if he was such a spectacular talent that he could crush the opposition of that time handily without much study, doesn't it seem likely that he could stand a very good chance of clawing his way to the top of the modern hierarchy?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Morphy would be severely outplayed. The state of chess theory has grown so much since he died. I think that he was a prodigy at playing chess how it was back then. I think a couple games vs. Petrosian would make Morphy look pretty foolish, even if he had learned all the new theory.

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"would the USA even win a bronze medal?"
---
To continue with this analogy, wasnt one of the big reasons the US has not excelled in recent years in International competition due to changes in rules that the players could not adapt to? Their style is more of a 1 on 1 based game, while international rules change the congestion in the lane, as well as the length of 3 pointers amoung other variables including a more passing oriented Euro style of play prevelent in international competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two reasons why we lost at bball: We didn't do a good job of picking the team - no pure shooters. Second reason is the officiating was unbelievably biased against us. Tim Duncan had 3 fouls before the game even started.

[David Sklansky]

"just like a changed game still would have a number of the basic skills necessary to be a winning player. and the best players in the world have these skills in spades."

Your argument would only be true if there weren't hundreds of just slightly less skilled in the present game, some of whom have specific superior skills that would be utilized more often if the rules were changed. That's certainly the case in poker.

[andyfox]

"To me of course, there is the secondary issue of which of the two categories I would rather be in if I could only choose one. If fame and fortune were equal it wouldn't be close, as expertise in category two means a greater ability to analyse almost any subject. In fact that is so important to me that even without the fame and fortune I would choose category two, especially if I could remain in the top 100 in Category 1."

A comment and a question:

-Being smart (or learned) at math and logic do not guarantee an ability to be expert in almost any subject. A good example, one I've brought up here before, is Robert Mcnamara and his "best and brightest" gang in the Kennedy/Johnson administrations. McNamara's smarts were well-suited to running Ford Motor Company, but ill-suited to the Vietnam War because, among other reasons, the war was not about math and analysis and logic and numbers.

-Why do you think it's so important for you to know and (forgive my presumptuousness) for others to know that you are more capable than most people of analyzing almost any subject?

[toots]

Every time someone uses the term "tournament champ," my first misreading is "tournament chimp."

[JoshuaMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
You see the games in question put a higher premium on thought and analysis as opposed to instinct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am skeptical that Barry & co. would remain unable to beat the biggest games if you added every crazy home game you can think of into the mix at the big game.

What makes poker such a unique and exciting game is the lack of complete information. If poker were a complete information game, even poker's crazy variants would be extremely simple relative to, say, chess. I highly doubt that the current top-tier players would make "complete information" mistakes in these variants that the "more analytical" second-tier players would be able to exploit. Maybe they would at first, but not for any substantial length of time. It is too easy to calculate the proper complete information plays for any variant of poker. And it need not be the elite players themselves who do the analysis necessary to learn optimal complete information play for a poker variant. One could, for example, hire David Sklansky or Mike Caro to do it and report the results. They might even do it for free, so they can sell some more books [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]!

I suspect that what you call "instinct" is actually the ability to ferret out opponents' hidden information and to conceal one's own. The elite players are just slightly better than the second-tier players at putting opponents on a hand and concealing their own holdings. The top-tier players would retain this ability no matter what variants of poker you threw into the mix. No amount of mathematical analysis will tell one whether an opponent has a wild card in the hole or whether he is bluffing.