What is the link between poker and backgammon/chess/bridge?

Even though I tried at one point, I never got really good at chess. I seemed to have taken to backgammon and poker a lot better for whatever reason. But I was surprised by your comment about reading your opponent in chess:

[ QUOTE ]
Overall, I'd say reading opponents is 30% of what shapes your decisions in chess

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but I didn't think Big Blue had any opponent reading built into it. It just analyzed the current board and made the best play, regardless of its opponent's past actions. And of course it was able to beat the world champ. Can computers still beat the best in chess? Do they read their opponents' tendencies or just make the "optimal" play based on the board?

[ QUOTE ]
To be more specific, why do so many good backgammon/chess/bridge players also make good poker players?

[/ QUOTE ]Some people are simply good at games. I suspect that someone who is good at poker or bridge could become good at gin rummy, for instance.

There don't seem to be many who are great at two (or more) of these games. Though I suppose it depends on your criteria for "great". There's no present day Oswald Jacoby, for instance. And, it's been a while since Billy Eisenberg was at the top of bridge and backgammon.

[ QUOTE ]
Even though I tried at one point, I never got really good at chess. I seemed to have taken to backgammon and poker a lot better for whatever reason. But I was surprised by your comment about reading your opponent in chess:

[ QUOTE ]
Overall, I'd say reading opponents is 30% of what shapes your decisions in chess

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but I didn't think Big Blue had any opponent reading built into it. It just analyzed the current board and made the best play, regardless of its opponent's past actions. And of course it was able to beat the world champ. Can computers still beat the best in chess? Do they read their opponents' tendencies or just make the "optimal" play based on the board?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without getting too much into the Kasparov vs. Deep Blue match, Kasparov's style exerts enormous psychological pressure on his opponents because he is a relentless attacker and wonderful tactician. Obviously, a computer feels no pressure, has no regard for the reputation of its opponent, and almost never miscalculates tactical combinations. Although Kasparov won the first Deep Blue match, the IBM developers worked hard to update the computer's opening repertoire and move selection algorithm. One of the keys in the second match was that the computer would calculate at 12 ply (6 move pairs.) If Kasparov made a move the computer expected, it would play the next move in its +EV sequence almost immediately. This time-saving strategy put enormous pressure on Kasparov because he did not have as much time to calculate deep lines as he would against a human opponent.

The last major computer vs. human match I've heard of was GM Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz - the "Brains in Bahrain" competition. Kramnik won 6-2, with no losses. Kramnik's deeply positional style yielded few tactical opportunities for the computer. A computer's move selection algorithm will always play the most +EV move in the same position, regardless of its opponent. I suppose the algorithm could be personalized based on the opponent.

If I'm playing someone I don't know, then it's hard to make a "read" that influences my move selection. Just because my opponent plays a defensive opening doesn't mean he's incapable of attacking. However, chess history is full of stories of match opponent preparation designed to exploit specific weaknesses. At that level of play, move A in a certain position may work against one player while move B in the same position may be preferable against another player. In that case, moves are dependent on "reading the opponent." The difference is that these reads are made before the game instead of during the game.

ScottieK

I think there are a lot of thought techniques that carry over from bridge to poker. I play high level bridge (in the UK) and a lot of my bridge playing friends who move to poker take it up quicker than my non-bridge playing friends. I am still better at bridge than i am at poker, but compared to my friends who started getting into poker around the same time, i am far ahead of them. Some of the reasons i think are:

1) Like other people mentioned there are forms of bluffing in bridge, and the key to getting these to work is not to make a bluff (either a misleading bid or a misleading card) because you don't see any other way of winning, but to try and mislead your opponents itno thinking you have something different to what you have. In poker a lot of begginers bluff on the river, because they see no other way of taking the pot down, but playing bridge gives you this 'false picture' philosophy. You have to try and represent something with your bluff, not just bluff for the sake of it. Sometimes this means planning to bluff a few rounds earlier than you make the bluff.

2)Odds and percentages are built into you at high level bridge. Counting and analysing your chances come so quickly once you have practiced and played 1000's of hands. People who haven't done things like this before, stuggle with all the quick maths that poker throws up at you, and esp. playing online where you have a time limit. For example, someone goes all in post flop and everyone else folds to you. You first have to analyize what your opponent has (a skill needed in bridge too) and then decide what your chances of beating him are compared to the pot odds. You may have a flush draw and one overcard, and can deduce that from his all in that he hasn't hit a set, but best guess top pair.You now need to count your outs, work out the chances of hitting them and then work out the pot odds. Since you only have a limited time online, people who aren't used to processing odds and percentages quickly, or those people who can't assess thier opponents hands, will make more mistakes until they have developed these skills. Skills that playing bridge at high levels come naturally.

There aren't the only similarities, but they explain why most bridge players adapt to poker quicker than someone who hasn't aquired these skills.

Eggpie

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There don't seem to be many who are great at two (or more) of these games. Though I suppose it depends on your criteria for "great". There's no present day Oswald Jacoby, for instance. And, it's been a while since Billy Eisenberg was at the top of bridge and backgammon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kit Woolsey is suddenly chopped liver? If he doesn't qualify, then your standards are absurdly high.

Being a lifetime chessplayer myself here is what chess brings over to poker

1. Being used to analysing the game, questioning decitions and studying the games of stronger players

2. Addapting to opponents .. When you are about to face a player first thing you ask is, what is his style, and what are his strenghts. And then you tailor your opening game and approch to him, so that you maximize the chances of him not playing his best game.


3. Desperado plays in lost situations .. you also bluff in chess

4. Using drawoffers as a psykological weapon .. and other mindgames

5. But most important .. In chess when ahead it is vital to keep applying pressure ... never give time for your opponents to relax, just keep pushing til they fall apart




But similarites between chess and poker IMO come down to The Psykology bit and being used to approching the game in a structured way while studying it. (And of course countless postmortems after playing a chessgame spills over to rethinking and reviewing your poker hands or tourneys after you have played them ... a sound thing to do, all the time questioning your own play ... always asking, where could I have played better ??)

[Komodo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even though I tried at one point, I never got really good at chess. I seemed to have taken to backgammon and poker a lot better for whatever reason. But I was surprised by your comment about reading your opponent in chess:

[ QUOTE ]
Overall, I'd say reading opponents is 30% of what shapes your decisions in chess

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but I didn't think Big Blue had any opponent reading built into it. It just analyzed the current board and made the best play, regardless of its opponent's past actions. And of course it was able to beat the world champ. Can computers still beat the best in chess? Do they read their opponents' tendencies or just make the "optimal" play based on the board?

[/ QUOTE ]

Without getting too much into the Kasparov vs. Deep Blue match, Kasparov's style exerts enormous psychological pressure on his opponents because he is a relentless attacker and wonderful tactician. Obviously, a computer feels no pressure, has no regard for the reputation of its opponent, and almost never miscalculates tactical combinations. Although Kasparov won the first Deep Blue match, the IBM developers worked hard to update the computer's opening repertoire and move selection algorithm. One of the keys in the second match was that the computer would calculate at 12 ply (6 move pairs.) If Kasparov made a move the computer expected, it would play the next move in its +EV sequence almost immediately. This time-saving strategy put enormous pressure on Kasparov because he did not have as much time to calculate deep lines as he would against a human opponent.

The last major computer vs. human match I've heard of was GM Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz - the "Brains in Bahrain" competition. Kramnik won 6-2, with no losses. Kramnik's deeply positional style yielded few tactical opportunities for the computer. A computer's move selection algorithm will always play the most +EV move in the same position, regardless of its opponent. I suppose the algorithm could be personalized based on the opponent.

If I'm playing someone I don't know, then it's hard to make a "read" that influences my move selection. Just because my opponent plays a defensive opening doesn't mean he's incapable of attacking. However, chess history is full of stories of match opponent preparation designed to exploit specific weaknesses. At that level of play, move A in a certain position may work against one player while move B in the same position may be preferable against another player. In that case, moves are dependent on "reading the opponent." The difference is that these reads are made before the game instead of during the game.

ScottieK

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about scott?
Im almost certain the match finnished 3-3 with one loss for each side.
I agree on the other part on the post though. Much in chess is read dependent or just striving for positions where you play at your best. You play the player very very much in chess.

[ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about scott?
Im almost certain the match finnished 3-3 with one loss for each side.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what I'm talking about. I guess I read the crosstable wrong. The Kramnik - Deep Fritz match was tied 4-4. My mistake.

ScottieK

[cognito20]

[ QUOTE ]
There don't seem to be many who are great at two (or more) of these games. Though I suppose it depends on your criteria for "great". There's no present day Oswald Jacoby, for instance. And, it's been a while since Billy Eisenberg was at the top of bridge and backgammon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dan Harrington is certainly a great poker player, and the fact that he's won the World Cup in Backgammon (the most important tournament in the game, one that, according to Robertie, no one but a top world-class pro has -ever- won due to the extreme length of the matches required to win it) I think qualifies him as a backgammon great as well. As for his chess abilities, USCF Master rating certainly qualifies him as very, very good, but probably below what would be termed "great" in that game (GM rating or so). Still, 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

--Scott

--

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There don't seem to be many who are great at two (or more) of these games. Though I suppose it depends on your criteria for "great". There's no present day Oswald Jacoby, for instance. And, it's been a while since Billy Eisenberg was at the top of bridge and backgammon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kit Woolsey is suddenly chopped liver? If he doesn't qualify, then your standards are absurdly high.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think anyone seriously considers Woolsey a top 10 in the world bridge player. I don't know about backgammon. Eisenberg was once at that level (in fact, I believe he simultanously held world championship titles in both bridge and backgammon). Woolsey certainly doesn't measure up to that standard.

I was not aware that Harrington had won a world championship in backgammon. If that is true, I would consider him in Eisenberg's class.