Chess with friends

[Sanlmar]

There is no commonality between poker skills and chess skills. None.

 

seriously, none.

Becoming a top chess player is like becoming a top mathematician in terms of commitment and energy expenditure. Becoming a top poker player = lol i read a book, have a massive roll, and run above average. #sorrynotsorry.

There are people who are great at both but usually thats because they are ferociously bright.

As for mistakes/blunders... at mid-level chess, the man who pursues the least flawed moves wins.

At high level chess, the man who pursues the least flawed theory wins. So youre not entirely wrong. Not to say the masters dont make blunders but they are rare, you get the idea Im sure.

Poker is a game of probability. On a more advance level poker is a game of probability and how different people react given their knowledge based on a limited number of facts.

Chess all the facts are on the table, it creates a vastly different game.

Those are two vastly different skill sets which I think is what you are alluding to above.

Just because the average player (or even a very good player) at poker is far less skilled doesn't mean the game is less complicated than chess. It just means we are not as far a long the progression curve of the game.

Chess is like 700 years old in modern form.

Poker is like 150 years old in modern form.

If you fall within the alleged PFA 35-50 demographic and had an ego and liked games you prolly took a shot at chess.

This was before there were so many other nerd sport alternatives available to kids today.

Unless you enjoyed doing your brother's physics homework you realized pretty quick chess was just something to play on a lark and nothing more. It served to teach an arrogant, indulged adolescent a quick lesson that "you ain't so special".

Yeah, chess is about memorization and enormous investment in time.

Most important, chess is the one game that when played at a high level has no allowance for a mistake. You make an error - you lose. Period. That blows - that is a flawed game.

No other game or sport is like that. Poker you can fuck up a hand, several hands and still rally. Chip & chair. Any other sport involves mistakes and errors and fighting through that shit. (Wrestling comes close to being unforgiving of errors.)

The allegation that hard work - 10,000 hours and all that - makes the difference is another reality that a young kid begins to learn early. He learns it's horse shit.

The fact is certain shit just come easier to some than others. Life ain't fair. Figure it out fast and adjust. Why does some kid have a "live arm" and the kid who goes to all the pitching lessons and does all the work not succeed?

So for the rest of us, games & sports that permit errors (poker) are popular. Games like chess are niche and remain that way.

The freaks & mental illness are amusing stories and i tune in. Read a lot about Bobby Fisher - tremendous stuff. Epic.

People who allege to be chess fans got some screw loose IMO. Unresolved mommy issues. I dunno.

[limitles]

Poker is a game of probability. On a more advance level poker is a game of probability and how different people react given their knowledge based on a limited number of facts.

Chess all the facts are on the table, it creates a vastly different game.

Those are two vastly different skill sets which I think is what you are alluding to above.

Just because the average player (or even a very good player) at poker is far less skilled doesn't mean the game is less complicated than chess. It just means we are not as far a long the progression curve of the game.

Chess is like 700 years old in modern form.

Poker is like 150 years old in modern form.

If you fall within the alleged PFA 35-50 demographic and had an ego and liked games you prolly took a shot at chess.

This was before there were so many other nerd sport alternatives available to kids today.

Unless you enjoyed doing your brother's physics homework you realized pretty quick chess was just something to play on a lark and nothing more. It served to teach an arrogant, indulged adolescent a quick lesson that "you ain't so special".

Yeah, chess is about memorization and enormous investment in time.

Most important, chess is the one game that when played at a high level has no allowance for a mistake. You make an error - you lose. Period. That blows - that is a flawed game.

No other game or sport is like that. Poker you can fuck up a hand, several hands and still rally. Chip & chair. Any other sport involves mistakes and errors and fighting through that shit. (Wrestling comes close to being unforgiving of errors.)

The allegation that hard work - 10,000 hours and all that - makes the difference is another reality that a young kid begins to learn early. He learns it's horse shit.

The fact is certain shit just come easier to some than others. Life ain't fair. Figure it out fast and adjust. Why does some kid have a "live arm" and the kid who goes to all the pitching lessons and does all the work not succeed?

So for the rest of us, games & sports that permit errors (poker) are popular. Games like chess are niche and remain that way.

The freaks & mental illness are amusing stories and i tune in. Read a lot about Bobby Fisher - tremendous stuff. Epic.

People who allege to be chess fans got some screw loose IMO. Unresolved mommy issues. I dunno.

And what if you "make a mistake" purposely, to fuck with your opponent's head. The number of possible moves in a chess game is some crazy number so I can't agree with you although I'm sure it's true more often than not.

Your job is to not make mistakes OBV but is it not also your job to make your opponent make them?

[sonatine]

if youre trying to discuss the psychology of gambits, it would probably further your credibility to know they are called gambits.

[limitles]

Oh dear, have I overstepped the forum's sensibilities? You know what I'm getting at and yet you're petty enough to avoid answering a point in favour of revealing a social blunder on my part, that is if you happen to be a stuffed shirt.

[Sanlmar]

if youre trying to discuss the psychology of gambits, it would probably further your credibility to know they are called gambits.

Can we agree on two things?

A gambit isn't a mistake.

You can't afford to make a mistake to establish "table image"

Chess is a pursuit of perfection to the point of madness. Which is why Carlsen is so interesting.

[limitles]

if youre trying to discuss the psychology of gambits, it would probably further your credibility to know they are called gambits.

Can we agree on two things?

A gambit isn't a mistake.

You can't afford to make a mistake to establish "table image"

Chess is a pursuit of perfection to the point of madness. Which is why Carlsen is so interesting.

No, I can't agree, a gambit could very well be a mistake. A "gambit" made later in the game would look more like an outright mistake to an experienced opponent.
As you said, two experienced players, who have likely seen just about everything and one apparently makes a mistake, perhaps at a crucial period. Would this not make the opponent suspect this mistake was not really a mistake?

I just confused myself, I'm going to bed.

[sonatine]

if youre trying to discuss the psychology of gambits, it would probably further your credibility to know they are called gambits.

Can we agree on two things?

A gambit isn't a mistake.

You can't afford to make a mistake to establish "table image"

Chess is a pursuit of perfection to the point of madness. Which is why Carlsen is so interesting.

a gambit is exactly a mistake; its a mathematically suboptimal sacrifice in position, tempo, and/or material strength based on the assumption that the opponent lacks the aptitude and/or depth of knowledge to maintain their advantage.

this is a major reason why people hate computers btw and claim they have essentially destroyed high level chess; computers have the depth of focus to 'solve' gambits that have been feverishly studied and discussed and debated since the 1500's.


also just my opinion but what makes carlsen interesting is his ability to play optimal lines so consistently, which is why id rather watch nakamura 100 times out of 100 truth be told. give me someone who explodes out of book and forces the opponent to rely on instinct to defend against piss wild attacks, thats my sort of game.

[sonatine]

i want to re-frame my response.

a gambit is not a blunder, but whether or not it has positive or negative equity for the person presenting the gambit is based on whether the opponent accepts the gambit with or without a strong understanding of the consequences.

against an opponent with absolute knowledge of all possible lines for a gambit, a gambit is always a mistake. always.

[Sanlmar]

i want to re-frame my response.

a gambit is not a blunder, but whether or not it has positive or negative equity for the person presenting the gambit is based on whether the opponent accepts the gambit with or without a strong understanding of the consequences.

against an opponent with absolute knowledge of all possible lines for a gambit, a gambit is always a mistake. always.

An interesting answer.

I am willing to offer you a draw. You should take it.

Is Nakamura v Carlsen the match we should be looking for?

[sonatine]

Carlsen has destroyed Nakamura before iirc and honestly its not exciting to watch.

I used to get an alert when Nakamura played on chessclub.com (http://www6.chessclub.com/finger/Smallville), Id log in to watch him play bullet/blitz. Pity he retired his public account there, I expect he still plays a an anonymous one perhaps..

[RegGaymer]

Nakamura plays at chess.com where he destroys the bullet games.

Queens gambit is still popular amongst many top GM's so I doubt they consider it a mistake.

[Daniel72]

Yeps gambits are usually pawn sacrifices in the opening.
Like in the Kings Gambit 1. e4 e5 2. f4 or even crazier stuff. Pawns for tempo and fast developments/attacks
The Queens Gambit is not really a gambit, because you win the pawn always back.

[RegGaymer]

Yeps gambits are usually pawn sacrifices in the opening.
Like in the Kings Gambit 1. e4 e5 2. f4 or even crazier stuff. Pawns for tempo and fast developments/attacks
The Queens Gambit is not really a gambit, because you win the pawn always back.

Congrats on the rating. Do you use Stockfish engine to review your games?

[gimmick]

Nothing like chess to bring out the hostility in people :P

I would assume in blitz/bullet there are suboptimal lines that have a higher win rate than optimal lines at a variety of skill levels.

There is also a small RPS type of luck element regarding openings and how well each player has studied them, when your opponent is not known ahead of time, this is more prevalent at lower skill levels. When your opponent is known ahead of time, how each player uses their time to prepare and if they find any mistakes from their opponents past games (that have gone unnoticed by them) that they can use to gain an edge has an element of luck involved.

Go is a game that is similar to Chess in the lack of luck department, the amount of time it takes to get decent and that it's not yet been completely solved by computers.

[Daniel72]

i heard Stockfish is a good and free program
but i use "Fritz" for ages
Computer analysis is only good for tactics (missed spots)
for improving on positional play and strategy the games of Smyslov and Karpov are the best material

[limitles]

if youre trying to discuss the psychology of gambits, it would probably further your credibility to know they are called gambits.

Being out of my element with regards to chess, yes, I have no doubt. Being out of my element with regards to axing a question, no. Should have realized the response I got was related to someones ego that dictates a form of one-upmanship.

[sonatine]

Sorry les, you just have a weird history of showing up in threads you know nothing about and assuming anything said by people you want negative attention from is wrong.

[limitles]

Sorry les, you just have a weird history of showing up in threads you know nothing about and assuming anything said by people you want negative attention from is wrong.

I've agreed I'm no chess aficionado but that doesn't rule out the possibility I may have learned something about how the masters play and what subtleties become a factor at that level. Assuming I "know nothing about" the subject is a guess on your part in any event. And asking questions is a time proven method of learning.


The highlighted portion of your post interests me more. I did not pose my question to you, so the negative attention comment doesn't fit the pattern and is again pointing a finger (forefinger) at your ego running amok.

As far as showing up in threads I know nothing about looking for negative attention, history would agree with you........... and who better than you to make that call.

[sonatine]

Ok les, my apologies.

[Suicide King]

Watching Daniel W. Have a meltdown was the best part of this.