Compare/Contrast Poker vs. Chess

[Reef]

That is because I was not referring to forced mate in the opening, but rather middle game or endgame. The example I gave earlier was 2 rooks + king vs. king.

[Monty Cantsin]

Because Chess is a finite 2-person game of perfect information, eventually there will be nothing left to say about it.

Because Poker is an iterated n-person game with hidden information, we can talk about it forever.

Unfortunately, approximately 90% of that conversation will be "how should I play AK when I miss the flop?"

/mc

[CurryLover]

I looked at the game, and played on the link you suggested for about 3 games. Presumably it is possible to work out the best strategy, but it would be a lot easier if you could just tell me!

So what is it??

[Gorgonian]

A 3000 rating is not "perfect." There is no "perfect" rating in the Elo rating system.

[Reef]

3000 is the theoretical highest elo possible. This is the perfect rating, hence the reason no one has attained it.

http://www.sizes.com/sports/chess_ratings.htm

[Gorgonian]

No it's not. Nothing on that page verifis that claim, and there are many clubs that use Elo rating system that have ratings higher than 3000.

[BugSplatt]

I tried to look through everyone's post as best I could, so hope I'm not repeating what's already been said.

The biggest difference, from my standpoint is this:

You can sit down for 100 sessions against the nine best poker players in the world, and you will some of the sessions (though they will get your money in the long run).

You can sit down for 100 games against the nine best chess players in the world, and you won't win so much as a game, and probably wouldn't manage to get a draw, either.

Bug

[Reef]

Did you scroll all the way down? There is a table at the bottom you probably missed.

I really think this is a unmeaningful tangent though

[Gorgonian]

Yes I scrolled all the way down. Read the whole article (which I knew all about already). The table at the bottom lists Senior Master as above 2399. What does this prove?

Ratings are relative numbers only. The absolute value of the number is meaningless. 3000 isn't even necessarily a good rating, let alone perfect. 3000 is only good if most people are less than that, and then it is only "relatively" good (meaning better than most people--everyone else may be dog poop).

Part of my duties with an online chess server was explaining this concept to people so I got pretty familiar with the concepts.

That said, yeah it's a meaningless tangent, so I will just drop it here.

[MMMMMM]

I recall that somewhere else on the 2+2 forum, there may have been a post or thread questioning whether you are really who you post as. A friend of mine suggested I ask you the following question as he thinks the real Gata Kamsky would know the answer.

What is the name of the chess player who used to play in Seabreeze Park quite some years ago, and who regularly offered anyone, for stakes, blitz chess odds of 5 minutes versus 1 minute and finally got no takers (and you would not even play him at that point)?

If you get this wrong it does not absolutely prove you are not Gata Kamsky, but my friend thinks you will know the name as he used to play there too.