Lack of young(ish) adults playing chess

[Arshad Ali]

I will agree that ultimately there is a lot of skill in poker like chess, but ultimately it is gambling.

Better players outperform weaker players over the course of play. It's the hefty skill component that attracts some of the better minds.

Poker is an easier game to learn and understand; but ultimately there are a lot of people out there who have lost a hell of a lot of money playing poker, you hear about the big wins, but perhaps not all the losses.

Those are the people who don't put in the hours to master the game (or lack the bedrock ability). They are the lemmings the pros make a living out of. The one skill a good poker player has which a chess player may not have is the ability to rapidly calculate odds. People with doctorates in math and physics have become professional poker players. It's a game of skill and as the time horizon increases the luck element asymptotically converges to a minor factor.

Some of us were having a discussion on the subject of poker at a quant site I frequent. Someone posted this:

Much like transition of trading has gone from pit trading to screen trading and to automated/HFT/Black box trading now...so has poker gone from live play to online play...and could eventaully get to programmed play as the game gets more "solved".

The best players in the world 50 years ago were old road gamblers that just had experience. As math teachers and more academic players looked at the game they basically ate the lunch of a lot of the "old guard". Today, with the advent and growth of online play, the best players in the world are young kids who sit at home and can play 100 hands an hour...per table...and can play 12 tables at a time. They can see 1,200 hands an hour without leaving their house. For comparison, a player in a casino might see 30 hands an hour. This is what I meant by the learning curve. I have played more hands of poker...and could argue....that I have more experience than a player that has played in a casino for 50 years. I've played over a million hands of poker...he has not.

The reason the online players are so much better is because they developed better fundamentals of the game. They don't prey on drunk tourists coming to a casino playing badly and spewing chips...online players have to play and win against other online players.

So they analyze there game more, create and develop tools for analyzing play (see Holdem manager and poker tracker). Develop equity calculators to run simulations of a hand vs a range of hands (see propokertools.com).

[David Robertson]

@Arshad Ali

So in what sense is this online activity really poker? The name of the game comes from poker-faced, that is: maintaining a determined visual composure at all times. Stripped of the visual/behavioural clues that are the essence of the authentic 'live' game, online poker seems to me to be little more than a monetised exercise in calculation.

I'll put it no better than this: online chess is struggle absent the money; online poker, money absent the struggle

edit: since writing this, I've discovererd that the etymology of 'poker' is not as I describe. The substantive point stands though

[Mark Howitt]

Not an expert in the history of poker by any means, but it took its name from trying to decieve people. That element is certainly present in online poker today. Although poker is quite a lot simpler than chess, there are still subtle psychological nuances which I hadn't expected in the game today. You have to play the man at least as much as the cards, and sometimes more. In some plays you KNOW you are way behind but your bet sizing and what you represent can still make players fold the best hand.

[Simon Ansell]

Stripped of the visual/behavioural clues that are the essence of the authentic 'live' game, online poker seems to me to be little more than a monetised exercise in calculation.

Without wishing to further derail a thread about the reasons why young adults don't play chess, poker (live or online) is basically just that - a monetised exercise in calculation. You assign your opponent(s) a range of hands, calculate the odds and act accordingly, throwing in some random plays along the way.

Physical 'tells' are overrated. Much more information is contained in betting patterns, bet-sizing and game flow. Anyone that disagrees is very welcome in my games

[matt_ward]

Yeah I'll be the first one to test your theory if thats fine with you.

matt.

[Mark Howitt]

I don't want to spend too long on this thread either as I have other things to do... however...

In essence, you could say chess is just 'calculating until you checkmate the king or not' but that doesn't quite capture its nuances.

A lot of poker is calculating odds and hand ranges. But it isn't just that. Even in online poker there is more to it (apparently there is more psychology involved in live poker and based and from what I've seen I can believe that.) For example, there's the amount of time you spend on a hand, what you say in the chat box, and basing your play on who your opponent is. For instance, a lot of opponents will like to double up or get out with a short stack- in this case some people will play anything so you'll adjust accordingly. Where it becomes more subtle is the area of postflop play, where you have to take a lot of things into account, like implied odds and which bluffs to represent. In short, it took me a year of playing poker for most days to fully get to grips with most of the nuances of cash game poker- there were more than I thought!

I'm aware Simon knows all of this and more already as he's a much better poker player than I am, but at least it'll give some other chess players food for thought!

[Andrew Wainwright]

Mark - If you have so much else to do then why are you always on here having a go at chess and singing the praises of Poker! This is a chess forum!!! Every other post you are going on about the fact that you used to be a chess player (and not that strong a player) who gave up the game to go do things that make you money. Well fine go do them. Many of us enjoy playing chess just for the enjoyment that we get from the game. If you are not a chess player then why continue to contribute to a chess forum? I don't mean to be harsh but others have more gently made similar statements and you dont seem to be getting the point - we like chess, if you don't then fine go talk to people on a poker forum!

[Mark Howitt]

Lol- typical 'chess players'' attitude. I'm not having a go at chess at all, just if I have a view on something I'll say it.

[Simon Ansell]

Yeah I'll be the first one to test your theory if thats fine with you.

matt.

I already tested it, Matt. What are your qualifications?

[Richard Bates]

I don't think it makes much sense to say that players give up chess because "they can make more money playing poker". You might as well say that they give up because they get a job (which is anyway far more justified as an argument because of the lesser flexibility involved). Money is an obvious explanation for why more players don't play professionally, but that anyway only applies to a small group of players. I certainly don't think it's relevant to the number of participants in the County finals!

[Ljubica Lazarevic]

You can get several hundred games (hands) in a single poker tournament if you're good enough, you get rapid feedback on your performance (your placement), you can drink at the table, you can have a chat and a banter. Poker is a very sociable game and probably feels more of a night out than chess. This isn't a judgement against chess, just that poker has many attractions to draw people in, not just opportunity to win money.

[Justin Hadi]

Yeah I'll be the first one to test your theory if thats fine with you.

matt.

I already tested it, Matt. What are your qualifications?

Pretty impressive. I don't think you're allowed to write your move down before placing your bet though...

[matt_ward]

Why on earth would you want to place a bet lets not turn chess, into a gambling game like poker please.

Simon Ansell Don't you think your question to me was slightly arrogant?

Luckily enough I don't take insults to heart.

Matt

[matt_ward]

Yes I agree with Ljubica, "hence" why more people go into playing poker and if you look at the statistics there are thousands more playing poker professionally. My brother for one use to play chess but he instead decided to take up poker he was a good chess player.

Now he does Poker Professionally. It is in general a much more social game than chess as Ljubica said and I might add to this their is more incentive because of the money prospect of potentially winning an unlimited amount.

Another thing is their is far less controversy in poker too.

My final hypothesis is basically take up poker and give up chess!

Matt.

[Mark Howitt]

OK here's my one post on this thread today!

I personally wish chess DID have more money and social status attached to it. Nothing would please me more at all- in fact even if I recieved no money but had costs paid for in a decent atmosphere I'd still play chess from time to time- even if I could get more money doing poker or something else.

Fact is, contrary to a view stated on this thread, poker's popularity is increasing and will probably continue to increase. If it's made 'legal' in the US there'll be a big new influx of players, and there's room for worldwide growth. Poker players social status will probably increase further- they are already on mainstream TV quite regularly, something chess has never achieved.

Now the ECF is trying to make some headway popularising chess, and they're doing a good job in the circumstances, but thinking of grass roots chess in England I think the likelihood is for the 'social status' of chess to remain low and the money involved to maybe slightly increase but still stay low. Thinking of the future, there's a real problem with the lack of young chess players.

Perhaps poker and chess should try and mix more. GM Williams had the right idea by holding a chess tournament in a poker club!