|
|
#1
03-12-2005, 11:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Garry Kasparov
I apologize in advance if since this probably belongs in the Bobby Fischer thread below, but...
With GK now retiring after two decades atop the chess world at the relatively young age of 41, could we see an eventual move to poker? I remember GK having a few ancillary interests, most notably a seat in the Russian Parliament a few years ago. With his mind (reputedly calculates 4 positions/second) and the proper instruction, I speculate he could play at a world class level in less than a year. There isn't the "Bobby Fischer psycho factor" either. As a side note, I was always saddened that the chess world was never privy to a Kasparov-Fischer match...who many argue were the two greatest to ever play (myself included). GK is the most technically sound player ever, but I argue that Fischer was the most creative. I'm reaching way back into my memory here (as I haven't played competitively in over 10 years), but there was a game from the 1960 U.S. Chess championship where Fischer played GM Byrne (sp?). The game was heavily analyzed throughout its play, and most kibitzing GMs thought Byrne was way, way, way ahead in positional advantage. Fischer found one move that almost instantly reversed this perceived advantage, and Byrne resigned a few moves later, leading everyone to conclude that BF had his opponent where he wanted the entire time. 
|
|
#2
03-12-2005, 11:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Garry Kasparov
|
|
#4
03-12-2005, 12:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Garry Kasparov
[ QUOTE ]
Which move was the big one? I'm pretty sure I know it, but it's been a while since I played some hardcore chess and my mind might be weak. [/ QUOTE ] I will guess that it was move 14, knight to d3. Can any chess expert confirm this? I only have a 1400 rating. It seems Byrne is screwed by the 16th move.
|
|
#5
03-12-2005, 01:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Garry Kasparov
A guy like GK would never want to play a game where chance played a large part in determining the result. GK's opponents have said that the GK stare (he has the most piercing eyes I've ever seen) is unnerving -- surely that would work out for him at the poker table. 4 positions/ second? that number is way too low. --wins
|
|
#6
03-12-2005, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Garry Kasparov
I disagree, the human brain does not work the same way as a computer (which calculates ten thousands of positions per second). The human brain is capable of compensating the slowness of raw position calculations by the means of a positional feel, long-term planning/strategy and general intuition - which does help a lot in the game of chess. Computers may calculate more positions but lack general intuition.
|
|
#8
03-12-2005, 01:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Garry Kasparov
He would be a superb poker player -- far more so than most chess legends.
Look at his games and you'll see a ton of aggression, putting people on the defensive again and again. But you'll also see that he controls risk extremely well. Other GMs known for their attacking (Tal, Mecking, etc.) overdid it a lot and sometimes just got hammered when the attack didn't work out quite the way they hoped. It's chess's version of TILT. Kasparov has a gift for seizing the offensive but not creating exploitable vulnerabilities in his own position. Dunno if he'd want to thrash his way through big tournaments. And after years of grimacing at the chessboard, he might be very easy to read. But his game-playing instincts (separate from his number-crunching acumen) are superb.
|
|
#9
03-12-2005, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Garry Kasparov
[ QUOTE ]
He would be a superb poker player -- far more so than most chess legends. Look at his games and you'll see a ton of aggression, putting people on the defensive again and again. But you'll also see that he controls risk extremely well. Other GMs known for their attacking (Tal, Mecking, etc.) overdid it a lot and sometimes just got hammered when the attack didn't work out quite the way they hoped. It's chess's version of TILT. Kasparov has a gift for seizing the offensive but not creating exploitable vulnerabilities in his own position. Dunno if he'd want to thrash his way through big tournaments. And after years of grimacing at the chessboard, he might be very easy to read. But his game-playing instincts (separate from his number-crunching acumen) are superb. [/ QUOTE ] Please stop comparing Chess to poker! Jesus, chess is a game of full knowledge, everything is revealed to you on the board. Poker is a game of concealed knowledge. Kasparov's 4 positions/second won't give him any advantage in poker. The cards are hidden, once again poker is nothing like chess.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
