Lack of young(ish) adults playing chess

[Justin Hadi]

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

It was a joke.

[Simon Ansell]

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

No, I don't.

I was merely taking issue with David Robertson's assertion that online poker lacks the authenticity of the live game. Poker has never been like that, it is fundamentally about the maths and always has been, that was my point. Of course I am oversimplifying somewhat, as Mark points out.

You seemed to disagree, so I was qualifying my statement and asking of your views - having played roughly 1.5m hands last year I have some knowledge of poker... I doubt you'll find many people on these boards who know me describing me as arrogant.

Chess is a much better game than poker.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Chess is a much better game than poker

Something that hopefully everybody posting here will agree with!

[Richard Bates]

Poker in its modern guise (hours in front of a computer screen) is hardly a model of social excitement either.

[Richard Bates]

You seemed to disagree, so I was qualifying my statement and asking of your views - having played roughly 1.5m hands last year I have some knowledge of poker... I doubt you'll find many people on these boards who know me describing me as arrogant.

You do occasionally (well on average one night a year) get a bit carried away about your chances of winning Hastings though...

[Simon Ansell]

You seemed to disagree, so I was qualifying my statement and asking of your views - having played roughly 1.5m hands last year I have some knowledge of poker... I doubt you'll find many people on these boards who know me describing me as arrogant.

You do occasionally (well on average one night a year) get a bit carried away about your chances of winning Hastings though...

I just saw your previous post and was waiting for something like that

[Stewart Reuben]

How odd that people want to analyse chess together with poker as if they can be equated. They are both fine games and have the immense advantage that they require different skills. I find it odd when people want to play both chess and draughts.
I have played chess for money and even been a hustler in New York in the 1960s, sometimes against the same opponents as at poker. It neither detracts from, nor adds to the game. Poker has been spread at the Mind Sports Olympiad with no cash prize money, just medals and been quite successful.
If you defined gambling as 'wagering on the result of an action over which you have no control' then poker is indeed a gambling game. I have come to the conclusion that this definition is the consensus, although investing on the stock market must then be included. Thus I am/was a professional gambler, though playing poker successfully for over 35 years.

Stewart Reuben

[Richard Cowan]

If you defined gambling as 'wagering on the result of an action over which you have no control' then poker is indeed a gambling game. I have come to the conclusion that this definition is the consensus, although investing on the stock market must then be included.

Not sure I agree with this... Owning shares is essentially owning a stake in a company. If the company's share price goes up or down, you still retain the same proportion of the company you had when the shares were purchased. In other words, this is similar to buying anything. The price of everything goes up and down, and you would not say you were wagering if you were just buying something would you? (At least I wouldn't...)

I like Poker as well as chess, and seem to do OK at it. I've not particularly invested a lot of time in it, as I tend to find it a bit dull waiting for playable hands...

[Joey Stewart]

One thing I think poker excels in is its television coverage - by not showing it live you are able to edit out the hundreds of 'non hands' where everybody folds, and make it looks like quite an exciting and action packed game where the professionals will play with whatever cards were given to them.

Perhaps chess could benefit from this as well - just showing the exciting positions, and moving hastily through the manouvering towards getting there, might well be a way to capture the modern generations limited attention span and then when they do get round to playing live and find it is not quite so fast paced it is too late because they have already paid their entry fees and have some vested intrest in being at the event.

[matt_ward]

Simon If you say chess is better.

Why do you play so much poker?

I do agree personally with you I have played abit of poker here and there, my understanding off it is not too bad considering the circumstances I think I have more ability of becoming a good poker player than chess.

Would you agree with this Poker is probably a easier game to grasp with Practice whereas chess is not so.

Matt.

[Simon Ansell]

Simon If you say chess is better.
Why do you play so much poker?

Money.

Would you agree with this Poker is probably a easier game to grasp with Practice whereas chess is not so.

Yes.

Personally, I've been playing chess for 27 years and I'm still crap in the grand scheme of things. I'm not brilliant at poker either, but I'm at least competent and that's good enough when there are so many weak players playing at the same level.

[Joey Stewart]

You could be that good at chess too if you only ever preyed on the weak and avoided the better opposition unless paid to do so

[Stewart Reuben]

Hungarian GM Tolnai when asked why he had given up chess in favour of poker responded, 'There are practically no poker players rated over 2300.' Simon Ansell is not at all a weak chessplayer. The median playing strength of competitive chessplayers is about 1600. I guess an IM approximates to a Ph.D (or possibly a Masters) in qualification.
Socially the games are quite different. In chess you want to play against the very best in the world (that is where the money such as it is lies). In poker you want to play against the weakest and richest. In the 1970s I was probably the best 7 card stud pot limit player in the world. No big deal, the Americans didn't play that variation. But sometimes it was rather like what Morphy must have felt when he was playing chess. The skills had practically nothing to do with percentage probabilities.
But I made much more money in real terms in the 1990s playing other variations against wealthy businessmen.

Stewart Reuben