That is not the point. I am saying that there are more very intelligent people among chess grand masters than among 'world class' poker players.

after one year better than durr no way , could be profitable yes i think so chess masters must have good concertration over very long time periods and obv, think ahead in the game/moves .
i think they would have a good shot at being a good poker hu 's player

I didn't see where you were saying that.

Baseless assertion. Thank you for playing.

This.
People are good at what they are good at. It is highly unlikely anyone would be able to match durrrr after 100 years let alone 1 year. and also highly unlikely that any poker player would be able to beat a top chess player even after 30 years of training.

I know. You have problems understanding anything.

That is why you are still posting on 2p2 even after MS himself told you to gtfo.

What the hell? Do I have to prove that chess grand masters are very intelligent?

I don't think so. Now have fun trying to prove that Hellmuth, Tony G and the like have and IQ above 110.

This thread is totally ******ed.


In the first place..chess is much more visual...and definitely more complex.



To become a chess master is not like becoming rich with online poker...its much, much more difficult and definitely requires YEARS and YEARS of EXTREMELY dedicated study.

Someone can have talent for both fields...but no chess player will reach the top without atleast somewhere around 10 years of ruthless maniacal dedication to the game.




The talents here are from different fields. And 1 year is nothing. NOTHING. For poker it might be ok...but even then....im sure it takes years to become really good at poker.



This thread is pointless.


It's like trying to ask which is smarter a grandmaster or nosebleed winning player. It's dumb. They are both really talented in what they do.

It could possibly also be that you never said that. I bet you can't go back through the thread and quote where you said there are more very intelligent people among chess grand masters than among 'world class' poker players.

I actually just used the ctrl+f and you didn't even use the words intelligent or smart in any of your posts prior to post #101.


A response just showing where you conveyed that would have been more logical and civil than a weak personal attack.

I'm not reading through this crap again, so choose one:

* show us the post in this thread where you claimed "there are more very intelligent people among chess grand masters than among 'world class' poker players."

* admit that you never said this prior to post #101

* I'll close the thread.

I'll be happy with any of the above outcomes.

Yes. Why wouldn't you? Chess is a board game. It demands a very narrow, specific skill-set. I'm sure that chess aptitude and intelligence are positively correlated, but I'm also sure that poker aptitude and intelligence are positively correlated, and I'm not at all convinced that one correlation is stronger than the other. I'm also not convinced that the positive correlation is anywhere close to 1 in either case. You'd have to prove that, because it's a grand, sweeping assertion--but you can't prove it, because you don't have the data.

True, but then again Durrr didn't become Durrr within a year. While he learned quickily, and was probably a poker 2000+ after a year, i think i am safe in assuming was not the 2800 that he is now. So in the broad scheme of apples/apples comparisions, the proper question is probably 1) if a chess GM and Durr each spent the same amount of time learning the other's "sport" after that time period, would Durr be a better chess player comparitively than the GM would be a poker player.

#59:
You're welcome.

The fact that you think these 2 things are equivalent statements is... weird.

Further, I find your statement in #59 to be ludicrous at best:

* many great poker players I know remember enormous amounts of detail about specific poker hands from months or even years ago. They have no problem remembering a large degree of nuance from something as recent as 50 hands ago. I'm pretty sure I stated as much around the time you

* The idea that "remembering every little aspect about the last 50 hands" = "being really intelligent" is an extremely limited view of intelligence.

So if you really want to maintain that #101 is saying the same basic thing as #59, I'm going to have to believe you basically don't know what "intelligence" means. On top of that, I think you're wrong and that many great poker players can easily remember such details.

A good memory doesn't equal intelligence IMO. Intelligence is much more than that.


And IMO claiming that chess grandmasters could remember the details of the previous 50 hands and top poker players can't is not the same thing as saying "there are more very intelligent people among chess grandmasters than among 'world class' poker players". And I also don't really accept the claim on its face.

Even this is a dubious assertion at best. There was a study done which compared the memories of GMs, masters, and club-level chess players. The GMs were able to reconstruct chess positions taken from games with virtually 100% accuracy after being shown them for only a few seconds. The masters did very well, but not as well as the GMs. The club-level players did poorly.

Then they re-tested the players, but instead of using positions taken from games, they showed them boards with random configurations of chess pieces. In reconstructing these positions the GMs demonstrated virtually no advantage over the club-level players. This very clearly shows that GMs do not necessarily have outstanding memories, but rather that their outstanding ability to understand chess positions and recognize chess patterns allows them to encode chess positions in their long-term memories quickly and accurately. So it's absolutely not a given that a GM would be able to remember poker hands as well as he remembers chess positions, because the types of patterns present in poker hands are different from the types of patterns present in chess positions.

Rusty, I think it's time to use your mod powers.

idk what there is to argue. Unless someone does a chess propbet against a high stakes player, bet some x million he can't get x rank at chess, what's the point?

Also lol @

Did anyone say that they are the smart poker players discussed?

fwiw, the similariy between poker and chess is the use of logical reasoning, and the way a poker player remembers hands will be fairly similar to the way a chess player remember moves, through the reasoning and plays of the opponent and his own response, so I imagine there is a fair amount of relevance between remembering poker hands and chess games.

I mean, as a stud player, I have terrible static memory, but I can still remember most relevant folded door cards by aligning it with the 3rd street action and such, whilst multi-tabling. Rusty would probably be a better authority on this though, maybe it IS remembering every single folded card, but I generally remembering it street by street, decision by decision and replay the entire thing quickly to find out what's folded if I needed to.

fwiw you are talking out of your ass.

You are welcome.

So, according to our poll, 2p2 members do not think that being very good at games is the decisive factor in being a good poker player, nor being highly intelligent. Given the fact that among the top pros there are ex-models and ex-cons, I tend to agree.

The fact remains that only a tiny percentage of people play poker at all, and that lack of competition is therefore a likely reason for today's top pros to be at the top.

I believe your interpretation of the results is flawed (this doesn't surprise me because every post I've seen you make has conclusions drawn before hand, and you pretty much ignore everything any one says). The results, especially in light of comments in this thread, indicate that being smart isn't *enough* to be the best.

Saying something over and over again doesn't make it a fact.

no money in chess, everyone's solid.

I think that a highly intelligent person with the right level of training and dedication (let's say playing 150 tournament games a year and studying 40 hours per week with professional trainers) could go from beginner to master level in chess (not GM) within about a year. This is purely hypothetical, of course, because it's unlikely that you'd find an intelligent person willing to throw away a year of their life on this challenge. But it seems reasonable to me (I am a chess master, by the way).

Even GM level would probably be achievable for a top poker player over time. And top GMs in chess could undoubtedly train themselves to succeed in poker. But it's all a question of whether someone would choose to make the necessary sacrifices to become a top player. No one will put in the necessary work unless they have a real passion for the game. You see this in chess quite often actually - a talented kid comes up, reaches 2400-2500 or so, but never develops further because other priorities come up in life. And it's the same in poker - one of the main reasons that the top players are so successful is that poker dominates their whole life to the exclusion of all other interests.

Dan harrington is Chess Master and obviously is good at poker but to beat the toughest game it takes much more than understanding the game (even deeply).
IMO its just different sets of skill. Chess is much more complex in one way but still can be solved (many positions has the best play). In poker same situation might call for two completely different plays cause every play depends on million factors that you could never put in one equation.

LOL
This is so true...

I agree that it's different skill sets but not for the reason that you say. In poker the number of choices (i.e., bet, check, call, raise) is very small and the difference in value between the options is also often minimal. For these reasons it is not really calculation of specific decisions that gives top poker players their edge (okay, one player might make the right decision 1% more often than another, and that will certainly give an edge over the long run, but it's not the main factor separating the decent players from the very best).

The main skill in poker that sets the best players apart is that they are able to induce mistakes from other players by using psychological tactics (adopting deceptive betting patterns, varying their play, exploiting their image, and so on). It wouldn't necessarily be possible for a top chess player to master these tactics.