HI,

I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
the three games and also good at another as well.

Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
inactive).

Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.

Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
poker has more luck than skill.

On Jul 5, 10:50 am, Zero wrote:
HI,

I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
the three games and also good at another as well.

Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
inactive).

Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.

Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
poker has more luck than skill.

There is some correlation among those games and also bridge. Probably
gin as well. Your idea that poker has less to do with skill than
backgammon is laughably stupid.

Will in New Haven

--

On Jul 5, 10:50 am, Zero wrote:
HI,

I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
the three games and also good at another as well.

Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
inactive).

Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.

Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
poker has more luck than skill.


The skills involved overlap somewhat. Chess focuses on strategies,
memorization and problem solving. All three of those skills are also
important in bridge, but I would weight problem solving more highly in
bridge. Backgammon is all about strategies and calculated risks.
Poker also involves strategies and calculated risks, and hand reading
involves a strong component of problem solving, but has much more of a
people component than those other games.

Skills like being able to remember information from one point in a
game and use that information effectively when making later decisions
in that game, or being able to identify an opponent's mistakes and
adjust your play to take advantage of them, would transfer between
poker and those other games.

On Jul 5, 8:50 am, Zero wrote:
HI,

I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
the three games and also good at another as well.

Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
inactive).

Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.

Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
poker has more luck than skill.

Poker, backgammon, bridge, blackjack counting, and gin are likely
highly correlated (with the exception that bridge and gin require that
you be able to count down a deck to play at the highest levels and in
blackjack ideally you can count down two or more). Chess requires a
large amount of memorization of historical play that isn't really
similar to poker at all. I'd say it's much more closely related to
the other oppositional search 2-player board games than to poker.

On Jul 5, 10:50 am, Zero wrote:
HI,

I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
the three games and also good at another as well.

Is there a correlation between the games?

Let me throw bridge in the mix also ... and note ... that computers
play rather crappy bridge ... rather crappy poker ... but excellent
chess and almost as good backgammon ...

When I was playing a lot of tournament bridge ... I was amazed at all
the Backgammon games going on in lounges between sessions ... mostly
high level against high level competition ...

I think the greatest correlation is that the people who play all ...
like to analyze situations .... and make decisions based on that
analysis ...
Game play in itself for the various games is very different ...

On Jul 5, 11:50 am, number6 wrote:
On Jul 5, 10:50 am, Zero wrote:

HI,

I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
the three games and also good at another as well.

Is there a correlation between the games?

Let me throw bridge in the mix also ... and note ... that computers
play rather crappy bridge ... rather crappy poker ... but excellent
chess and almost as good backgammon ...


The best chess computers today are probably slightly better than the
best human players (10 years ago the best computers and top humans
were about at the same level), but it wouldn't be a total blowout.

A computer beat the human world champion in checkers, but the match
series was close.

A computer totally destroyed the human Othello/Reversi champion.

Computers are roughly on the level of a world-class human player in
backgammon.

But the best computer programs are only at the level of a strong
amateur in bridge, a mediocre amateur in poker (except in heads-up
limit holdem where the computers are pretty strong), and an advanced
beginner in go.

I think the correlation between good poker players and good chess
players isn't anything deeper than to say smart people are good at
games.

On Jul 5, 12:49 pm, Iceman wrote:
On Jul 5, 11:50 am, number6 wrote:

On Jul 5, 10:50 am, Zero wrote:

HI,

I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
the three games and also good at another as well.

Is there a correlation between the games?

Let me throw bridge in the mix also ... and note ... that computers
play rather crappy bridge ... rather crappy poker ... but excellent
chess and almost as good backgammon ...

The best chess computers today are probably slightly better than the
best human players (10 years ago the best computers and top humans
were about at the same level), but it wouldn't be a total blowout.

A computer beat the human world champion in checkers, but the match
series was close.

A computer totally destroyed the human Othello/Reversi champion.

Computers are roughly on the level of a world-class human player in
backgammon.

But the best computer programs are only at the level of a strong
amateur in bridge, a mediocre amateur in poker (except in heads-up
limit holdem where the computers are pretty strong), and an advanced
beginner in go.

I just know in relationship to myself ... I play Bridge, Chess and
Backgammon quite well ... ( not quite LM in Bridge ... quit playing
tournaments too early ... near master in Chess also before I stopped
competions ... and a lot of good play against highly ranked Backgammon
players - never in competions though) Never lost to computer
bridge ... lose consistently to master level chess programs ... barely
hold my own against good Backgammon programs ...

In poker games online ... I've seen several players playing bots ...
they get so easy to defence ... give them pot odds at times ... and
take them away at others ... Just like in Bridge ... there are certain
things the program will never do ... and certain things it will always
do ...
The Chess programs don't gobble pieces ... The Backgammon programs
don't hit every blot ...

In article . com,
Iceman wrote:


The best chess computers today are probably slightly better than the
best human players (10 years ago the best computers and top humans
were about at the same level), but it wouldn't be a total blowout.

That's not true. The best computer (Hydra) is substantially stronger
than the best humans. The best computers which run on
commercially-available hardware are "probably slightly better than the
best human players" but that's not the same thing.

But the best computer programs are only at the level of a strong
amateur in bridge, a mediocre amateur in poker (except in heads-up
limit holdem where the computers are pretty strong), and an advanced
beginner in go.

The interesting thing about poker, though, is how well amateurs do
compared to professionals. While it's true that the best professionals
consistently do a lot better than the best amateurs, in poker you
consistently see tournaments won by a player of mediocre skills who
happened to get the best cards.

I'm not sure what the chess comparison is for Ben Affleck winning a
serious poker tournament, or Chris Moneymaker winning the biggest
tourney of them all. The best celebrity chess players are probably
around master strength, and a master would get utterly destroyed by
chess professionals. Ben Affleck may be a strong amateur poker player,
but a strong amateur would have no chance against a group of
professionals in chess.

-Ron

It is much easier to count a deck in bridge than in blackjack. For
starters, in bridge, you see 26 of the cards at the start. Second,
the cards are pretty much all played in suits; i.e. it is not at all
uncommon for, say, a round of clubs to be played, then for all or
nearly all the spades to be played out before another suit is
touched. Third, the meaningful focus is only on the remaining high
cards in a suit. If the three highest outstanding cards are the King,
Jack, and ten, it doesn't matter much if the 2/3/5 or the 4/5/7 are
out. Fourth when one side is exhausted of a suit, it matters little
what cards the other side has. If North has only the club A and South
only the K and 2, once those three cards are played, it doesn't matter
which of the remaining cards East holds and which West holds. The
pace in bridge is also more deliberate, since counting is a legitimate
part of the game, no one is obligated to play until they have properly
digested the cards played to the last trick, while in blackjack you
could hardly say to the dealer "Wait a minute, please collect the
cards more slowly, I couldn't remember them all."

I think the most significant distinction is between games of complete
information (chess, backgammon) and those of incomplete information
(bridge, poker). In the latter, you often have to guess what your
opponents are doing (and your partner also in bridge, although
nominally he is on your side.)



On Jul 5, 11:47 am, wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:50 am, Zero wrote:





HI,

I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
the three games and also good at another as well.

Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
inactive).

Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.

Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
poker has more luck than skill.

Poker, backgammon, bridge, blackjack counting, and gin are likely
highly correlated (with the exception that bridge and gin require that
you be able to count down a deck to play at the highest levels and in
blackjack ideally you can count down two or more). Chess requires a
large amount of memorization of historical play that isn't really
similar to poker at all. I'd say it's much more closely related to
the other oppositional search 2-player board games than to poker.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -