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

Oh yeah, forgot about Greg. Greg's an IM last I knew. Harrington's a USCF master.

ScottieK

[checkmate36]

I thought Harrington's co-author (B. Robertie) played some poker but it doesn't mention any poker in HOH, just his backgammon and chess background.

Howard Lederer is well known for playing chess and was considered a chess prodigy as a young man. Also, Tuan Le lists his main hobby as chess, which I find interesting given that he is such an aggressive bluffer.

I can’t speak for backgammon and bridge players, but I can speak from a chess player’s perspective. I’m a winning poker player (but not good enough to brag about,) and I’m a class A chess player (again, not good enough to brag about IMO.) I just enjoy playing and studying both games.

First, I haven’t seen any real correlation between intelligence and chess ability. I know plenty of rocket scientists and math whizzes that study chess a lot and still can’t play a decent game. School studies say that kids who play chess do better in school because of what they learn, but I think chess sharpens their critical thinking skills and isn’t necessarily linked to intelligence. There are common traits of chess and poker that appeal to chess players. These are the traits that appeal to me:

1. Elements of the game. Chess players begin to learn chess by becoming familiar with certain patterns (piece movement, checkmating patterns, pawn formations, etc.) and tactics (forks, pins, skewers) that appear several times in games. Poker has similar recurrence of patterns (hitting a flop, reading a board) and tactics (checkraising, slowplaying, overcalling, etc.) that are used in various combinations to a player’s advantage.

2. Analytical nature of the game. Chess can be analyzed almost to infinity. Players identify strengths and weaknesses in their game by going over past games, preferably with someone of greater chess strength. Poker has a similar feature.

3. Learning from books. Most chess players I know read books and magazines to gain new insight into the game. Same with poker. When I started studying poker, reading a book was a natural way to begin the process. This is probably true for other board games, but maybe not for other endeavors.

As someone mentioned, Bob Ciaffone is an excellent poker and chess player. In one of his articles, Bob mentioned that Ken Smith (of Smith-Morra gambit fame) is also a good poker player. Dan Harrington is a chess master. I’ve seen GM Walter Browne playing 8-16 at Bellagio. A lot of my chess playing friends also play poker or have given up chess for poker.

ScottieK

[RiverDood]

I'm a chess player from long ago, and your analysis rings true. Here are a couple other points to add.

Single-table SNGs remind me enormously of a serious chess game. They come in stages -- and you need to know how to transition between them.

1. Opening. Very formulaic. You can and should study what to do at the beginning. Play logically. Don't make mistakes. Be patient.

2. Middle game. Now you've got all your stuff in action and so does your opponent. It's parry-and-thrust time. You want to seize the initiative -- without being reckless. These are much more complex patterns, and we learn them by playing a lot and developing "intuitive" senses of when we're in command and when we need to back off.

3. End game. We're down to bare bones. Suddenly our risk tolerance changes. In chess, the king becomes an attacking piece. In poker, all sorts of hands that were insta-folds early on now ought to be pushed. . . . Tempo matters enormously, too. Zwischenzug and slow play are kindred concepts. Ditto for opposition and the gap concept.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a chess player from long ago, and your analysis rings true. Here are a couple other points to add.

Single-table SNGs remind me enormously of a serious chess game. They come in stages -- and you need to know how to transition between them.

1. Opening. Very formulaic. You can and should study what to do at the beginning. Play logically. Don't make mistakes. Be patient.

2. Middle game. Now you've got all your stuff in action and so does your opponent. It's parry-and-thrust time. You want to seize the initiative -- without being reckless. These are much more complex patterns, and we learn them by playing a lot and developing "intuitive" senses of when we're in command and when we need to back off.

3. End game. We're down to bare bones. Suddenly our risk tolerance changes. In chess, the king becomes an attacking piece. In poker, all sorts of hands that were insta-folds early on now ought to be pushed. . . . Tempo matters enormously, too. Zwischenzug and slow play are kindred concepts. Ditto for opposition and the gap concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense. Maybe that's why I feel like I'm much better at single table SNGs than regular limit play. Get through the opening to a playable middlegame (don't lose a lot of chips or go bust early.) In the middlegame, accumulate small advantages (steal blinds, win small pots) and be alert to tactical opportunities that win material (win a lot of chips.) Use counterplay to meet an attack (reraise, bluff.) Defend when necessary (fold.) Convert your advantages in the endgame and deliver checkmate (lean on your opponent until he loses all his chips.)

NH

ScottieK

[Shandrax]

Personally I think being a good poker player and having a chess history doesn't tell us much other than the obvious. Being good at chess shows that you have above average intelligence and that doesn't exactly hurt your poker game.

Poker and chess really don't have anything in common. In chess you can win (draw) by always playing the best move and this best move (usually) does exist. You don't have to adapt to the opponent at all. In poker this doesn't work, since there is no pure strategy. Exactly that's the reason why computers can't play poker at world class level and never will.

[RiverDood]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker and chess really don't have anything in common. In chess you can win (draw) by always playing the best move and this best move (usually) does exist. You don't have to adapt to the opponent at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I beg to differ!

Once you're 10 or 12 moves into a chess game, there's usually no consensus about the "best" move. There are multiple "lines" at your choosing that will take you into different kinds of middle games. (Somewhat similar to poker.) Chess pundits are arguing constantly about the merits of these different lines, and most of the arguments aren't fully settled. If you and your opponent are reasonably close in skill, you want to head into a line that plays to your strengths and exploits his shortcomings.

In chess: Are you the better tactician? Look for something sharp and double-edged that may let you close in for the kill within a dozen moves.

Are you better at slow positional struggles? Keep the position closed and try to outmaneuver your opponent over 40 moves.

Who's got more/less time on the clock? This has intriguing parallels to stack sizes in poker. If you've got more time in chess, you want to keep the position as complex as possible. Let the other guy make a mistake in time pressure. If you're tight on time, look for ways to simplify until you're into an endgame that plays itself.

Overall, I'd say reading opponents is 30% of what shapes your decisions in chess and a higher percentage in poker. So you're right on your second point that poker is a harder game for computers to master. But unlike checkers -- where computers really have established the best moves in most situations -- chess still has a good bit of room left for human judgment.

[AlanBostick]

[ QUOTE ]
I’ve seen GM Walter Browne playing 8-16 at Bellagio.

[/ QUOTE ]

Walter is a prop player at the Oaks Club in Emeryville, California. He's a fixture in the Oaks' 15-30 hold'em game during the graveyard shift. He's a good player and a nice guy. I like playing with him, however much I don't like having a player as good as he is in the game.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’ve seen GM Walter Browne playing 8-16 at Bellagio.

[/ QUOTE ]

Walter is a prop player at the Oaks Club in Emeryville, California. He's a fixture in the Oaks' 15-30 hold'em game during the graveyard shift. He's a good player and a nice guy. I like playing with him, however much I don't like having a player as good as he is in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how many chess pros make their money these days. Actually I picked up poker after GM Gustafsson mentioned this trend on ICC.