Mirror time.

So I take it you plan to just ignore this?

OP, to show everybody that you actually know something about chess, can i ask for your USCF rating?

This debate is pointless. Like it has been said before, chess is mostly memorization. Poker is mostly logic and math, 2 completely different skill sets.

Also I watched this show where this psychologist or someone trained his daughter to become a chess master, and they tested her and stuff, and they found that the part of her brain that is used to recognize various faces, spacial recognition was being trained to memorize all of the chess moves and boards. This is only something that can be done if you're taught very young. The consensus was anyone who put in a **** ton of work as a kid that wasn't mentally challenged could become a grand master. And it's generally the same with poker too, anyone who works hard enough and has good emotional control can become a very good player. As long as they don't go broke before then =p.

This may have been said already, but psychologists have done studies showing that if the pieces are placed randomly on the board, chess masters will only be able to memorize their positions about as well or marginally better than the average person.

It's only when the pieces are arranged on the board in positions that resemble those that come up during actual play that chess masters are able to memorize the board much better than the average person.

The reason has to do with how they are able to memorize the positions. Because of the vast amount of study they have put in, they are able to chunk the information into meaningful pieces.

and I see someone beat me to it. This is what I was referring to.

Yeah people heavily overestimate "talent". It's very rare to have someone like Stu Ungar who has photographic memory, so rare I can't even think of anyone in poker or chess who has that. Which also proves it's mostly about how much hard work you put in. Obviously the higher your intelligence is makes it easier to get better faster. But someone less intelligent could surpass the player with higher intelligence with more work.

Who is the ex-model and who is the ex-con? You don't mean Matusow, do you?

+1

False.

Here's an interesting question for the forum: let's say that the 13th best golf player in the world practiced basketball for six months and nine days. If he and Lebron James then competed head-to-head in a game of blindfolded darts with the dartboards placed behind each player, respectively, who would lose the most blood?

I'd say Lebron James. I think he would be bigger and therefore would have more surface to hit and therefore would get hit by more darts and therefore would bleed more.

False.

Lebron James has ice water flowing through his veins. Classic sucker's choice picking him.

Ah, but Lebron would probably throw harder, leading to deeper puncture wounds.

What I meant is, chess is mostly converting as many chess situations as you can into long-term memory, knowing all of the possible outcomes.

Obviously that helps with everything, but in poker the variables change a lot more. There's many more situations that are much more flexible, aren't solved and set in stone. So you're using various skills to try to come to the correct conclusion. There's obviously a lot of stuff that is just automatic and you know it's good and anything else is bad, but a lot of stuff that isn't so as well.

Lebron James would obviously win because this guy would never ever be able to become as strong as him. If you equated this to intelligence it'd be like a genius (Lebron) facing someone with down syndrome in a competition of intellect. But neither could have played before, otherwise the down syndrome guy could be taught to say beat Einstein in a game of chess, if Einstein had never played before. A grandmaster could just teach the down syndrome guy an optimal strategy to try to get a quick win before his memory gave out heh.

False. Really, do you know anything about chess, or are you just popping off?

[ ] thread is about chess or has anything to do with chess
[ ] many posters fail to understand that I used chess grand masters as an example for people who are highly intelligent and very good at a game
[x] many posters pretend to fail to understand that I used chess grand masters as an example for people who are highly intelligent and very good at a game

tr;



oll.

You really need to stop making posts that aren't about what they say they're about.

[ ] This thread is about poker theory or anything that has to do with poker theory

[ ] You've demonstrated that all GMs are highly intelligent
[ ] You've demonstrated that GMs are, on average, more intelligent than high-stakes poker pros
[ ] Your threads are worth reading

I think learning poker is very hard because even when you get a decent explination about a concept, you might think that you understand it when in fact you really do not. Poker has a way of constantly tricking you.

Chess is not like that. It is very hard to be a GM, and I know that I will never be one. But when I studied chess, I felt like I was learning and was also sure about what I was learning. With poker, I know I am learning, but I am not always sure about it, and I mis-apply concepts so often that who knows, maybe I really do not understand them that well to begin with.

Chess is straightforward hard, but poker is confusing.

please do not close the thread just because a few haters stop in and post "this thread sucks" imo ban the haters.

i like poker and chess and there are a lot of really good posts itt.

False. Opening-game play is very reliant on memory. The openings are very well studied and documented and named.

But the real reason why I posted this is just so I could say "False!" Or at least "Partly false!"
.
.
.
Mostly True!

I was actually curious. The ex-con I can make some guesses at, but I have no idea who the model is.



Also it woulda just been easier to say what you meant instead of using an example without telling anybody it was an example of a more inclusive group of people.


This thread went for 140 posts, often specifically discussing chess grandmasters and chess, before you reveal that you didn't actually want to discuss chess grandmasters but actually were thinking about people who are highly intelligent and very good at a game and were using chess grandmasters as an example. If that's what you actually meant you must have been able to discern a long time ago that nobody else knew that.

Antonius, I guess.

sorry to sidebar but it seems like there are some chess players here.

quick question: have any of you ever actually beaten the Chess Game on a MacBook or MacBook Pro or any Apple? i'm a bad chess player (new) so i can understand not being able to beat it but a few decent players i know haven't even come close!