Have you guys read Morals of Chess by Benjamin Franklin? If not imo you should, only takes 5 minutes to read. I just read it for the first time and I think it strongly relates to poker and I think that Benjamin Franklin, if he was alive today or if poker was around back then, would have played poker.

That the morals of the two games are different is fine by me, but what really interests me is how he was talking about how the game helps us in different ways by giving us skills that we would not have had had we not played the game.

Rather than us all read it why don't you give a summary of the main points?

Then some people might read it without having to risk totally wasting severa hours of their time?

Perhaps you might like to read a draft copy of my auti-biography, it's very interesting.
Email me if you are interested

its a 1 page essay troll

why not post a link?

http://clatskaniechessclub.tripod.com/id70.html

chess is a pretty sick game

any game without an element of chance that is independent of the limits of foresight is of no special interest to me. there are so many ways to gain an advantage in chess through simply knowing more about the strategy-space that the most interesting mind games are often precluded.

as for the essay, seems fine. ill quote it when drunk and chatting with a patzer.

only the last paragraph is worth reading imo.

I thought this thread was going to be about the morals of a game where the pawns are sacrificed for the sake of the king and queen.

would you mind dumbing this down for me? You're saying that chess is a game that's 100% skill where no luck is involved but what do you mean by "independent of the limits of foresight?" What mind games? Ones within chess or are these some different games that you're referring to that would interest you?

we cannot predict all of the consequences of our decisions. how a move now will affect the strategies available to myself and my opponent x moves from now is not something either of us can accurately compute or evaluate but it is relevant to the outcome of the game. the ''limit of foresight'' changes depending on the players and their respective forecasting and valuation abilities, but it is always there.

note that my comment ("mind games") doesnt apply to ''grandmasters'' but most people who play chess are not in any way comparable to grandmasters.

i really just meant that:

a) there is a lot to know about chess;
b) slight edges in chess knowledge translate into large edges in chess playing skill (there's some nuance here but it can be ignored for now). you can gain an insurmountable advantage over a player of equal skill by investing more time in study than he does. this is true for, oh, several thousand hours of study;
c) consequently, you have to spend "too much" time memorizing to remain competitive.

there are many situations in chess where a player with superior knowledge of the game can make a move that his opponent cannot effectively counter. when the opposition does not have counters available there are no mind games ("what does he think i think he thinks?" and all that entails. instead you get, lol, this clown doesnt know that taking slapshots just inside the blueline always equals goal! only in a less imitable way).

VanVeen, when you talk about having to memorize/acquire knowledge, are you referring to specific opening variations, or tactical and strategic concepts? If the former, this is only really relevant above the 2200 level (perhaps this is the level you care about). If the latter, I'm not sure I would characterize it as memorizing.

Also, I do not agree that "slight edges in chess knowledge translate into large edges in chess playing skill." In fact, I think that the optimal ratio of playing chess: studying chess is well over 1:1, although I have absolutely no evidence to back this up. Furthermore, a large part of studying chess is analyzing games (either your own or those of grandmasters), which is really just an extension of what you do when you play a real game. Sure, you have to learn certain endings and tactical patterns and stuff like how to play with or against an isolated d-pawn, but overall I think most chess knowledge is abstract---that is, a general sense of how to play rather than a set of concrete concepts. Thoughts?

So you like getting your Aces cracked?

I'm a main chess guy here on 2p2 (chess from was created by virtue of my massive chess thread in OOT) and I've read the Benjamin Franklin essay a few years back. It's pretty cool and I wonder how good he was at the game.

any game without an element of chance

There is no such a game. In chess very often you reduce your options to two and finally choose one more of less randomly without really being sure of its superiority.

that is independent of the limits of foresight is of no special interest to me.

You are talking about puzzles, it seems.


there are so many ways to gain an advantage in chess through simply knowing more about the strategy-space that the most interesting mind games are often precluded.

Mind games especially the most interesting ones are also "independent of the limits of foresight".

very interesting, great stuff, thanks for clarifying.

so basically it's a whole article on common sense stuff like slowrolling is rude

VV, you seem to prefer games that reward mind games over games that reward raw, 'dumb' knowledge. do you prefer rps over chess also? where do you think poker fits in this? is it not the same as chess, in that better poker knowledge will prevail?

if you actually knew the GT-optimal strategy, would you play that, and be a lock to eventually end up in an andy beal-esque situation, playing whoever's best at the 'mind games' but as the favorite, or try to outwit your opponent with no real security that he won't outwit you? play GTO, and any known wrong move by the opponent will ensure you you're the favorite - unlike regular play, where you never really know you haven't just been lucky so far.

so, aren't our attempts to put people on ranges, balance our own ranges, etc etc merely an effort to get closer to that coveted strategy? if it were known and you could put in thousands of hours reading and master it, would that not put poker into the same category as chess? if so, what difference does it make that it isn't yet known - isn't getting better at poker still all about trying to figure that out, rather than becoming better at 'outplaying' people?

cool discussion imo

I made this OP when I was in Tours, France. What's with the crazy bump... brings back memories of a ****ty hostel but a fun Bastille day.

ok

Yes.

I'm not sure that having a random element to a game is equivalent to not needing to memorise things. For example, in bridge knowledge of bidding conventions is useful, and knowledge of card play also helps. At Go, memory skills are not particularly useful and Go has no random element.

FWIW, I apply different moral standards to different games. At poker, if someone flashes me their hole cards I will tell them once (and exploit the knowledge I gain). If they continue, I will not tell them again and continue to exploit. However, at bridge I would continue to tell the player and attempt to not exploit the knowledge I gained.

I just don't understand how the Bishop always ends up next to a horse.

A player past 2200 wouldn't make the mistake of over-emphasizing the opwning. Any chess player worth his salt knows the game is won in the end game.

I think the article shows that even though chess is a game with winners and losers, there is still the spirit of cooperation ensuring civility maximizing the enjoyment of both parties.

To contrast chess with poker, it is inadvisable to make plays to sucker your opponent unless you are hopelessly lost. To win by cheating is an insult to the intellect in chess, and defeats the purpose of playing so it rarely happens. Where iin poker players are more apt to cheat, because they feel no shame in having an additional advantage. (I also warn a player once as a courtesy for flashing his cards, but only once.)

Franklin's essay is more about diplomacy than it is about chess. Wise counsel nonetheless.