Poker Chess Table

Chess: A Quick Comparison. To make a proper comparison between the two, let’s break down the parts of these games—things that make it interesting for players. We believe that poker and chess both have their merits, and the choice depends on a player’s skill and personality. Now on the other side of the table, so to speak, Ashley commentated the U.S. Chess Championships in St. Louis this month, where America’s elite chess players battled for the title of U.S. So the real question is, who else was on Cube’s side of the table actually cutting the deal? Because Cube has no political poker face. The biggest difference between the two games is what’s missing. In chess, you play to win; in poker, you play to win money. If Trump loses, Black people have nothing. Chess is a two-player game while poker is played with up to ten players at the same table. This results in different dynamics- strategically and psychologically- in both the games. In chess, good play is always rewarded if you outplay an opponent. True, a lot of quality chess minds have found comfort in poker: GM Alexander Grischuk is a top-ten chess player in the world, and also one of the best high-stakes players in Russia.

Chess and poker are frequently compared as both games are based on strategic thinking and decision making. I know many professional and semi-professional chess players who've completely abandoned chess in favor of poker.

At some point the numerous fans of Russian super-GM Alexander Grischuk were really worried that he might be another casualty of this trend. Fortunately both GM Grischuk and WGM Almira Skripchenko (who won over $250,000 in her poker career), decided to stay in chess.

As you can see, many chess players tried to utilize the skills they acquired by playing chess at the poker table. But can poker skills be useful at the chessboard?

While we lightly touched the subject of bluffing in chess in this article, the reason to discuss the subject of chess and poker again is the following bizarre idea of one chess amateur. He quoted the recent tweet of Bill Mitchell:

'One of my favorite tricks playing poker is to bet big on a hand I know I'll lose so my opponent thinks I'm bluffing next time...'

So, the above-mentioned chess amateur suggested to deliberately blunder something in the very beginning of the game, so your opponent thinks that you are a total beginner who doesn't know how to play chess. Then you set up a trap and offer bait. As your opponent still thinks that it is just another beginner's blunder, he/she takes the bait and promptly loses the game.

You see, I don't play poker, so I don't know who Bill Mitchell is (and a quick Google search didn't provide any answer). The guy could be a poker star or he could be just an amateur. Also, since I don't play poker, I cannot say if the Bill Mitchell's strategy is good or bad.

But I can tell you that in chess this idea would be both ridiculous and stupid.

This is how I see this 'strategy' in chess.

1) At the very beginning of the game you make a ridiculous blunder. I assume it should be something like this:

So, your opponent believes that you are a beginner and takes the bishop.

2) Later in the game you set up a trap and give him another piece for free. Probably it should look like this:

As silly as this scam looks, I truly cannot say that it is completely pointless and it would never work. First of all, after your initial blunder 2.Ba6?? your opponent might start laughing so hard that he/she dies and consequently you will win by forfeit. Second, against a total beginner it might work because beginners generally accept all the free pieces they are offered without any worries for the consequences.

But, I can assure you that against this kind of player you don't need the initial, intentional blunder, since the beginner will accept the real bait even without your sophisticated psychological preparation!

So why might this strategy work in poker but most certainly will not work in chess if you are playing anyone above USCF 1500? To answer this question, let's check game theory.

Game theory divides all games into two categories: cooperative and non-cooperative. Both chess and poker are obviously non-cooperative games as the opponents are trying to achieve their own goals: one player's win is certainly another player's loss!

Wikipedia states:

'Non-cooperative games are generally analysed through the framework of non-cooperative game theory, which tries to predict players' individual strategies and payoffs and to find Nash equilibrium.'

Nash equilibrium is one of the cornerstones of the game theory. This is how Wikipedia explains it:

'In game theory, the Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy.'

So basically, similar to the Newton's first law that says that 'a body in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force,' the Nash equilibrium says that a player in a game has no incentive to change his/her current strategy unless the opponent changes his/her current strategy. So far so good.

It looks like it only proves that when we start the ruse by playing 2.Ba6?? we set our opponents on the wrong track, which they will keep following until they discover the deceit when we checkmate them. But if we dig deeper, we can find a big difference between chess and other popular games, including poker. Wikipedia calls chess a 'perfect information' game, where you can see all the information on the board. At the same time backgammon has perfect information on the board, but has chance moves (roll of dice). And what about poker? Wikipedia says that poker has both 'imperfect information' (some or all the cards are held by other players) and ' chance moves' (the cards being dealt).

So while superficially chess and poker might look similar, in reality they are completely different! Therefore, unlike poker, when you offer opponents your second 'free gift' as bait, they will see all the information on the board (remember, unlike poker, chess is the game of perfect information), see the obvious trap and reject your sacrifice -- so your whole strategy will fail!

Does it mean that chess players cannot learn anything from poker since it is a totally different game? I think we can! Just like in poker, it is very important in chess to understand your opponent's general strategy; try to read his or her mind. Then you can turn the game in the direction that will be the most unpleasant for your opponent! Here is a good example from my youth.

My very first opening for Black that I learned was the Dragon variation of the Sicilian. I loved the excitement of an attack in the position with opposite-side castles. To tell you the truth, this excitement and adrenaline rush were even more important than the result of the game! If I got this kind of the position, I could play pretty well:

After the game I learned that the whole combination happened in the game Althausen and Simagin played in 1943, and this information made me even more proud since I felt like I played like a grandmaster!

But sometimes my adult opponents thought: 'why should I go for all these complicated positions against a kid who can probably calculate some variations, but doesn't know first thing about chess strategy?' So, these mean people castled kingside and I felt cheated. This is not what I liked.

All experienced chess players 'play the opponent' in some way. I remember that before playing GM Etienne Bacrot in the famous tournament Cap d'Agde I was thinking about my strategy for this knockout match. I knew that my opponent was younger than me and already had a higher rating. I also suspected that just like all youngsters he liked sharp positions and knew all the developments of the modern opening theory. So, I decided on the following strategy:

1) Follow the old Soviet chess saying : 'С молодёжью в эншпиль!' (Roughly translated: 'when you play youngsters, go straight to the endgame!')

2) All the openings I would play in the match should be very fashionable. That is, very fashionable at the time when Etienne's grandparents were born!

Here is one of the games from our match:

And here is the latest opening development I was following:

As far as I know, many professional poker players wear sunglasses, so their opponents cannot see their eyes. Fortunately, chess players don't, with the exception of this famous game:

Next time before the game, look at your opponent's eyes. Try to figure out his/her thoughts, what he/she likes and dislikes. What's his/her mood? This information can be very handy for your decision making during the game!

How To Become A Chess Master

Martin Staszko (born 22 June 1976) is a Czechpoker player from Třinec, best known as the runner-up of the Main Event at the 2011 World Series of Poker, where he finished second to Pius Heinz.^[1]

Staszko lives in the industrial southern Silesian town of Třinec, best known for Třinec Iron and Steel Works. His parents are Rudolf, who works in iron works, and Žofie, who works as a pharmacist.^[2]

As a child, Staszko was an athlete, becoming long jump champion of his Třinec Polish primary school.^[3] He started playing mariáš and betting on sport games during high school. Later, while studying at Technical University of Ostrava, he not only supported himself from the games, but he also saved roughly CZK400,000 (€14,000) annually. During his studies, Staszko became champion of the Czech universitydarts league and was also a successful chess player.^[4] After finishing studies, Staszko started working at Třinec Iron and Steel Works.^[3]

Playing chess taught me how to endure long sessions by the table. Chess also required much more preparation, which is not needed for poker. So compared to chess, poker playing is a piece of cake with much higher earnings.

He began playing poker in 2007, initially playing online in games which did not require entrance fee, but provided some very limited returns.^[3] At that time, Staszko worked as foreman at Hyundai Nošovice automobile manufacturing plant's paint shop. He was in charge of around 200 workers, earning a little over CZK 30,000 (€1,200) a month. He used to get up at five in the morning in order to attend twelve hours shifts followed by playing poker, leaving only some four to five hours for sleep.^[3] He was able to win an equivalent of six-months salary during a night online session. In 2010, following a win of €35,000 in France, Staszko decided to leave his job in order to fully concentrate on gaming.^[4]

His runner-up finish in the 2011 Main Event garnered him $5.43 million (€3.98 million).^[5]

Notes[edit]

Poker Chess Table

1. ^'Pius Heinz Wins the 2011 World Series of Poker Main Event'. Card Player. 9 November 2011.
2. ^'Parents still do not believe poker champion: Why our son studied?'. iDnes.cz. Retrieved 9 November 2011.
3. ^ ^abcdEisenhammer, Milan (2011), 'Flanelový král: A teď nevěstu!', Týden (46): 82–83
4. ^ ^ab'I am thrifty, says Czech, who won in Las Vegas poker 13 million'. xman.cz. Retrieved 18 November 2011.
5. ^'Pius Heinz wins $8.72 million World Series of Poker main event over Martin Staszko'. Winnipeg Free Press. Retrieved 9 November 2011.

Poker/chess Tables