Bobby Fischer

[curtains]

Minimum FIDE rating for IM is 2400 and minimum rating for GM is 2500.

[OrianasDaad]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a list of the top 100 player and their ratings:
link

and this gives a little bit of explanation about the ratings: link

Also, I really doubt that Harrington is a 2400. But even if he were at one point, he probably is not anymore because to be able to keep a rating that high you must be in constant practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Dan is a 2400 master, then he's a life master at least, and he'll be found in the player listings at www.uschess.org

[curtains]

Dan isn't 2400. I think he was in between 2200 and 2300?

[OrianasDaad]

[ QUOTE ]
The man has been detained, and wrongly in his mind. Why be so hasty judging him for getting angry like that? When he played chess he was always composed while at the chessboard.

Counter examples welcomed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do a search for his radio interviews from on Baguio (sp) radio from either the Phillipenes or Argentina a few years ago. You may be able to get a transcript from www.chessopolis.com

[OrianasDaad]

[ QUOTE ]
well my great uncle is pavlov and he knows everything about chess matter of fact get his book. And bobby fischer owned him 5 straight times. in like 1971

[/ QUOTE ]

Bobby owned two people five straight times in 1971. Danish GM Bent Larson and Russian GM Mark Taiminov. Blanked them 6-0 in each candidates match, actually.

[OrianasDaad]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm quite sure that Fischer could play winning poker. The only thing that might prevent someone like him from doing well would be the tilt factor. Chess players never lose to inferior players beacuse of a lucky draw. The first time someone caught a 2 outer on the river would be a really telling moment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to disagree. The amount of emotional investment in a five hour game of chess is heavy. Especially the games where you know you are slightly behind, mabye a pawn down for little compensation, or mabye some bad positional features.

I've heard that American GM Walter Browne is a fairly regular poker player, especially at Foxwoods. Anyone played poker with him?

[MicroBob]

Nice to see you posting in this thread curtains.

Curtains doesn't like to toot his own horn but he is pretty darn good.
Dynasty wasn't exactly a 'patzer' (chess-term for 'fish') either as I recall.


I, OTOH, really suck at poker...partly from lack of study.....partly from lack of talent.

USCF under 1500....but got better via internet chess club and stopped playing USCF so probably got closer to 1600 in ability at my very peak (might be stretching it here).


Drew a 2000 before and a couple wins over 1800's.
Otherwise, busy hanging my knight against the pesky, young 1300's who always seem to have improved their game much more than 1300 status everytime I have to play them.


I think some of the points about getting frustrated with the short-term losses are valid when trying to compare the two games. Not all decent chess-players would be able to adjust.


Also....I believe it has been said that with proper instruction and enough study it shouldn't be too tough for almost anyone to become a 1600 rated chess-player. But we're talking 8-hour a day study over a few months or something like that.

I believe Lev Alburt claimed he could turn anyone into an 1800-rated player at least.


It's kind of different with poker though....when you try to teach someone how to beat the 3/6 game they can easily get turned-around by short-term fluctuations, "I didn't raise with AA and it worked out fine that time."

Whereas generally in chess, if you play badly, you lose.

I've heard many chess-players claim to get 'unlucky' in certain games...but it doesn't quite have the same ring to it as the fishy poker-player who loses on a bad-beat yet continues to think he's better than most of the players he faced.

[OrianasDaad]

Emanuel Lasker once claimed he could make someone into a Master in 50 hours (or was it 100?). Things have probably changed since the early 1900's, though.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard that American GM Walter Browne is a fairly regular poker player, especially at Foxwoods.

[/ QUOTE ]


didn't know that.
If I had to guess I would think that he would be a pretty decent poker player.

Surely he wouldn't be weak-tight or otherwise fishy, would he?


[ QUOTE ]
The amount of emotional investment in a five hour game of chess is heavy. Especially the games where you know you are slightly behind, mabye a pawn down for little compensation, or mabye some bad positional features.

[/ QUOTE ]


Tell me about it.
I am curious how it compares to a 4 or 5-day big-money poker tourney (I'll find out soon enough when I play in the PPM4). Since the poker-tourneys can take 12 hours or more in a day I know there are many complaints about how exhausting they can be.

But those chess-matches can be positively brutal.
taking 20-40 minutes on a SINGLE MOVE can just clobber your brain.
I played in a 5-round weekend swiss (Friday night through Sunday eve) and won my first 4 matches in my class so was in the running for the money heading into the 5th round Sunday evening. But my first 4 matches all were 5-6 hours. 6 was the max length (3 hours for each player...specifically, 40 moves for first 2 hours, and rest of game in the next hour) and 2 of my matches was the very last to finish for that round (out of 400+ players).
I was completely exhausted. I had scrambled my way out of a couple tricky positions....searched long and hard in other complicated middle-game positions (complicated for me at least) and given my very all to win those first 4 rounds.

I was physically and mentally drained (and blew it in the 5th game...hell, I could barely see the board).


I know poker takes some concentration too...and obviously when you are folding your hands you should be paying attention to the mannerisms of others, etc etc....but it still doesn't seem to me to be even close to the energy I use in a long and gruelling chess match.

And this was only a 5-round weekend swiss.
Not even close to some sort of 10-12 round World Chess Open in Philadelphia or a round-robin against a bunch of IM's (although I guess there is that whole bit about quick draws).


I know that Dynasty and Curtains have more experience at this stuff than I do but I just thought I would share my impressions on how incredibly exhausting chess can be.

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
Fisher is incredibly intelligent therfore he would excel at poker. Just like Michael Jordan is an incredible athlete and excelled at baseball.



[/ QUOTE ]

Perfectly stated.



As for Dan Harrington's rating, I looked it up at uschess.org, and it's quoted at 2355, with no activity since 1990. This puts him at national master, which is the upper escelon of amateur status. It's respectable, but it's not current and it's not Bobby Fischer, or Garry Kasparov, or <insert random russian name here>.

Harrington's credentials as a poker player make his credentials as a chess player barely a sidenote.

As for IM and GM titles, I would very roughly equate IM to having passed q-school on the PGA. GM is more like having multiple top ten finishes in a major within a time window of a few years.

To put it another way, I might equate GM status in chess to having a PhD from a credited university. It's tricky to equate it this way, but it's at least roughly accurate. Similarly, IM would be a little better than a master's degree, and FIDE master (FM) might equate to a B.S. Harrington's national master rating quoted above might then be equated to 1 credit shy of a B.S. I'm probably being generous.

To wrap up this thread, Talking about a GM learning to win at poker would be about the same as talking about a PhD in math, psychology, physics, etc, etc winning at poker. Maybe there's overlap with the GM having a "competitive" mindset, but you can arue about the psychologist having a certain mindset or the mathematician having a mindset also. I'm not convinced that chess has all that much overlap with poker. The similarities are fairly limited to the newfound boom in both fields due to online play and computer analysis, lending geeks and nerds a leg up on the competition. In chess they already had that advantage, perhaps. But, poker is now much more nerd friendly. lol.

P.S. If I had a gun to my head forcing me to stake someone to the 2005 WSOP, I'd take any random reader of this thread over any chess GM and a copy of SSHE, or SuperSystem, or <insert random poker book here>.