Apr

13

Skills transfer, from Big Al

April 13, 2022 |

Carlsen has a great poker face:

World Number One Magnus Carlsen Stuns Everyone With His Poker Skills

Every time you watch the world chess champion, Magnus Carlsen, he never fails to amaze. It’s like he is the best in everything he touches. His brilliant skills are not just limited to the world of chess. But the Norwegian Grand Master can easily adapt to other games as well. While Carlsen’s stats in the Fantasy Premier League can give you chills, his poker skills are even better.

WATCH: Magnus Carlsen, Best Chess Player In History, Turns Pocket Aces Into A Bluff

A reader writes:

i have noticed that ambitious chess players, by and large, seem to be pretty straightforward type guys….not saying they never lie - they are humans but it made me think about certain disciplines in life requiring a sense of honesty to improve - also honesty for oneself - cuz the game itself is not about gaming others but by using memory, logic etc. and lying itself puts extra mental strain on the brain, and they need to concentrate for hours and hours. whereas say ppl who manage OPM…well, a lot are good in marketing etc. no prob with that, just saying.

Zubin Al Genubi adds:

The joke about lying in our family comes from when our kids were little.

We asked,"Who did this?"

Big sis says,"Kenny did it."

Little Kenny says,"Kitty did it!"

J.T. asks:

So poker is the antithesis of chess?

Big Al responds:

From what I've read, von Neumann didn't consider chess to really be a "game" because of complete information. On the other hand, he loved poker because of incomplete information and the possibility of bluffing. He felt poker was, therefore, a true "game".

Andy Aiken comments:

Sprague-Grundy Theorem states that all impartial games are equivalent to Nim. Since a chess game starts impartially, and there is a process of removing pieces (and therefore at each turn, a chess game has a nim-state equivalent), it is a game in the classic sense. But the randomness of play is due to human error, not chance.

The current chess programs can beat international grandmasters and eventually they'll be insurmountable by humans. The final stage of programs playing one another (if anyone cases to watch such games) will probably consist of elaborate opening traps and gambits, with volatile position scores until midgame, at which point the winner will be obvious.

Poker has a large element of chance that can be increased without any change to game rules (adding decks to the shuffle, table bet limits, etc). And there's the additional issue of money/bankroll management that adds further uncertainty. In contrast to poker, in which everyone plays for money, I only know one person who plays chess for money, and he's a 2600+ rated player.

J.T. writes:

Don’t forget the use of bluffing in poker whereas chess doesn’t have such.

Stefan Jovanovich disagrees:

"Bluffing" is the essence of chess - and warfare. Both players see the board - as opposing armies see each other's deployments. What each player cannot see is where their opponent intends to attack and where they plan to defend and how much those plans will change as the game continues.

The biggest part of the blitzkrieg lie is that the French and British did not see the Germans coming through the Ardennes. They did; they did not think it was going to be the main axis of attack. And, until the Germans had the good fortune to have their opponents recover a copy of their tasking orders from a general staff officer, the plans did not have the Ardennes being the center of focus.

I am, as in most things, barely mediocre at chess; but I am unembarrassed by my lifelong habit of asking dumb and then dumber questions. The one person I know who is capable and who studies the game like a real-life Philip Marlowe tells me that deception is the key and the great challenge is not to fall victim to your own certainties about what is going to happen next on the battlefield.

List of chess openings

Big Al responds:

You've using a very soft/fuzzy definition of information and bluffing. In game theory, chess is a game of *complete information*, i.e., all the information about the game is visible on the board to both players at any given time. Poker is a game of *incomplete information*, e.g., in Texas Holdem you don't know what your opponents hole cards are and you don't know what cards will be dealt on the flop, turn, and river. Also, in poker you can truly "bluff", i.e., pretend, through betting, that you have cards you don't have. In chess you can't pretend to have more pieces than you do or that they are in positions on the board other than the ones they actually occupy.

War is definitely a "game" of incomplete information.

Stefan Jovanovich contends:

No. Militaries know what each other side has - in terms of resources - and unlike poker the game is continuous. There are no hands, bets and then the winner takes all; and then new hands are dealt. I can understand how JHH and others see Ukraine as winning; judging each day's events as a single operation or poker hand shows a picture of success for Ukraine. Yet here we are in a war that continues with no end in sight even as Ukraine gets more advice based on the presumption that Russians cannot think more than one move ahead.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search