chess live

Chess Live

Share and you will discover!
Funny name, real matters
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
otter606 ♡ 28 ( +1 | -1 )
chess v poker Hello,
Do you think its possible to be a good poker and a good chess player? Or do you think the
mental skills necessary to succeed in one game make it harder to do well in the other?
I'm speaking as someone who is fairly mediocre at both but enjoys the differing challenges of both games.
gajolen ♡ 53 ( +1 | -1 )
Sure i should be posibel.

A good chess player should have good memory, and calculation skills, which is also nesesary to be good at playing poker.

But i think maybe in general it dont attract the same kind of persons. Chess is a much more "deep" game than poker. There is no luck in chess, and you can not win by bluffing your oponent. It is also a slow game, i think people who likes poker might find chess to complicated, and with to litle action.
petik ♡ 9 ( +1 | -1 )
Bluffing You mean you've never bluffed your opponent into believing your sac was sound?
gajolen ♡ 57 ( +1 | -1 )
Well Petik maybe you are right in some way :)

The great GM Mikhail Tal was known for his many sac's and after later analys many of them has been refuted. But often when he offered material the position was so complicated and required 100 % sharp /acurate play from his oponent that they sooner or later made a litle mistake where after Tal totally destroyed them.

But really when playing chess I strive to almost find the best posibel response from my oponent to my moves, so if i sac a piece i will only do it if i can not see the refution.
soikins ♡ 32 ( +1 | -1 )
bluffing Maybe I'm being ignorant about poker, but once a strong poker player (at least considered strong here in Latvia, but as himself admited - there are no decent players here at all :) ) told me that strong poker players don't bluff, only patzers do. Maybe this statement was bluff? :)
ccmcacollister ♡ 48 ( +1 | -1 )
A Second to Fischer ... during the match with Spassky in the 1970's, named Ken Smith, is a noteworthy player of both Chess and Poker. In a book I recently read about that Chess match, it gave me the impression that he might have been even the more noteworthy for his Poker than his Chess. Despite the fact that it is his analysis and writings in the Sicilian Morra Gambit that have caused his name to be appended to it, rechristened as the Smith-Morra Gambit.
ccmcacollister ♡ 111 ( +1 | -1 )
AND ... how could I forget ...
A friend of mine who is a FIDE Master has been playing Poker lately, instead, and says he has made more profit from a couple years of the Poker than decades of Chess. And that many of the skills are the same.
Right now Texas Hold-em seems to be about the most popular game, it appears to me. And there is a lot of predictablity to it, based on reading the cards shown or known, as to what the possible outcomes can be. And the percentages of that are forseeable, so it is not a purely luck game. The good players seem to see it as more one of Probabilities and Prediction. And do not play hand without good potential beyond the Ante bet. Or one after.
In a sense you might say there are Openings known in Texas-HE, like Chess has. Getting an Ace and King of same suite for your first two cards is the best start, except for pairs, for instance. And may be considered better than low pairs, since it offers more potential when all the cards are home. In other words, a good opening hand, and one to bet upon.

Still, luck can send you home early despite the percentages! (Thats My opinion :)
fmgaijin ♡ 42 ( +1 | -1 )
Poker/Chess Players I know many titled players on the NM/FM/IM/GM continuum who are excellent poker players, several of whom either gave up chess for poker (more lucretive) or greatly diminished chess in favor of poker. Some of these players actually preferred chess, but they knew that they could not earn a decent living a chessplayers, so they became professional poker players instead.
spurtus ♡ 43 ( +1 | -1 )

Half the game is playing good cards, the other half is playing the players.


All the game is playing good moves, there isnt anything left except less sound moves.

Although I have to say do sometimes gamble with chess!... usually when my analysis shows no possible initiatives except outrageous gambits, or when I sense my opponent fears me.

premium_steve ♡ 53 ( +1 | -1 )
in chess too, though, there can be a big advantage gained in playing the players. you can discover some weak points and get into positions where they are more likely to blunder, or not play as well.
playing like that might not benefit your game, but it can give better results.

surprise and psychology can play a role.
and a player's appearance, etc.. can affect the opponent OTB.
not so much as with poker because your game is right in front of you. there aren't things you need to hide as often in chess.
a_professional_idiot ♡ 40 ( +1 | -1 )
The basic difference... Chess is a perfect knowledge game. Every possible option is available on the board, and theoretically perfect play will result in at least half a point.

Poker, on the other hand, does not involve perfect knowledge. Firstly, the opponents cards are technically unknown. Secondly, because there is random chance involved, perfect play does not necessitate victory.
spurtus ♡ 16 ( +1 | -1 )
I heard there are no computers that can beat the best poker players.

Is this true? I would find this amazing if true!?

brilliance ♡ 169 ( +1 | -1 )
Spurtus I know for a fact that there are programs used at the bigger online pokersites, that'll only play heads-up (1 vs 1). They have accumulated a LOT of money for the programmer and can keep up with the good players that lives on the game.

Problem is in poker, at least in one of the more popular forms (Texas Hold'em), slump often will decide the outcome and even if you are a statistician- you can't do anyting about it.

Now, say that you hold pocket aces before the flop and someone moves all-in with pocket kings; there's still 1/8 of a chance he'll hit that third king. In poker, you don't play one game- you must really play over a long time to reduce statistical fluctuations.

Moreover, there are other factors than "I have 1/3 of a chance to hit that flush"- and it's called implied odds. In short, it's how much you think you can get out of your opponent IF you hit that flush.

A program, which you know beforehand is a program, will always play correct i.e not take bad decisions like moving all-in with bottom-pair when there are ace and king on board and you have signaled strength pre-flop.

In theory, you could make a program that could play heads-up vs a beforehand known opponent, but there would still be an edge for the pro poker player since he knows how his opponent plays but the cpr would be thrown off by swithcings in pace, aggressivness etc.

To sum it up: poker is a people's game, the many factors involved and the randomness would make it nearly impossible to create a program that would be able to calculate all this. The best move in poker is dependant entirely on your opponent.

Hope this makes any sense.