If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Another Canadian chessplayer who we will lose to the Poker World
Another Canadian chessplayer who we will lose to the Poker World
Antoine Bérubé of Quebec City, with a FQE rating over 2100 and a CFC rating over 2200...has let his FQE membership elapse...and has joined the Poker world where in less than a year, he has done reasonably well:
Re: Another Canadian chessplayer who we will lose to the Poker World
I have a question for people who know a lot about both chess and poker, and their relationship:
I'm good (for an amateur) at poker (and, of course, by poker I mean holdem). I've never read any of those books that tell you the exact winning percentages such and such, or played in real tournaments, but I've played a fair amount in high school and university and am definitely well into the plus (relative to what I've bet) in my lifetime.
I've heard that chess players tend to be good at poker. My modest chess ability is almost strictly tactical. I can calculate and find some creative moves over the board, but I'm terrible at openings, because I haven't studied enough, and I'm terrible at endings, because I play poor positionally. So, which facet of chess ability is conducive to poker ability? The tactical, positional or memorizational? Or is it a combination? Is learning those aforementioned winning percentages imperative to any real success at poker? Why are chess players good at poker? Etcetera...
Secondly, how would one go about testing (cheaply) to see how successful they can be at poker? All these commercials on the television tell me that I can "play online for free" but I suspect that if you're playing for free, you can't be winning money. Is "playing for free" just "joining for free"? How does this really work?
Lastly, is it realistically possible to derive any form of financial benefit (i.e. greater than the opportunity cost) from online poker without playing multiple games at once? Because that sounds like work... which is the thing I hate most...
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
Despite the recession chess turnout seems to be growing in Hamilton and Niagara region.
I don't know if poker is really hurting chess. (But maybe that's not what your title was meant to imply)
In any case, I enjoy the study of both limit hold em and chess.
I doubt it's just Hamilton and Niagara; recessions tend to build interest in chess. Yahoo! just had a story how board games of all kinds are enjoying a resurgence because of the recession.
Chess organizations that see more people coming out over the past year should be careful not to think it's all because of something they are doing. But on the other hand, this recession is expected to last a few years more (Obama is even talking about a "lost decade"), so chess should enjoy a mini-boom.
Poker, on the other hand, will likely be hurt by the recession. Last year's number of entrants to the WSOP was down from the previous year's record, and I'd expect this year's to be down considerably again, maybe dramatically. Perhaps if enough amateurs decide to stay home, a pro can finally win.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I have a question for people who know a lot about both chess and poker, and their relationship:
I'm good (for an amateur) at poker (and, of course, by poker I mean holdem). I've never read any of those books that tell you the exact winning percentages such and such, or played in real tournaments, but I've played a fair amount in high school and university and am definitely well into the plus (relative to what I've bet) in my lifetime.
I've heard that chess players tend to be good at poker. My modest chess ability is almost strictly tactical. I can calculate and find some creative moves over the board, but I'm terrible at openings, because I haven't studied enough, and I'm terrible at endings, because I play poor positionally. So, which facet of chess ability is conducive to poker ability? The tactical, positional or memorizational? Or is it a combination? Is learning those aforementioned winning percentages imperative to any real success at poker? Why are chess players good at poker? Etcetera...
Secondly, how would one go about testing (cheaply) to see how successful they can be at poker? All these commercials on the television tell me that I can "play online for free" but I suspect that if you're playing for free, you can't be winning money. Is "playing for free" just "joining for free"? How does this really work?
Lastly, is it realistically possible to derive any form of financial benefit (i.e. greater than the opportunity cost) from online poker without playing multiple games at once? Because that sounds like work... which is the thing I hate most...
I have a question for people who know a lot about both chess and poker, and their relationship:
I'm good (for an amateur) at poker (and, of course, by poker I mean holdem). I've never read any of those books that tell you the exact winning percentages such and such, or played in real tournaments, but I've played a fair amount in high school and university and am definitely well into the plus (relative to what I've bet) in my lifetime.
I've heard that chess players tend to be good at poker. My modest chess ability is almost strictly tactical. I can calculate and find some creative moves over the board, but I'm terrible at openings, because I haven't studied enough, and I'm terrible at endings, because I play poor positionally. So, which facet of chess ability is conducive to poker ability? The tactical, positional or memorizational? Or is it a combination? Is learning those aforementioned winning percentages imperative to any real success at poker? Why are chess players good at poker? Etcetera...
Secondly, how would one go about testing (cheaply) to see how successful they can be at poker? All these commercials on the television tell me that I can "play online for free" but I suspect that if you're playing for free, you can't be winning money. Is "playing for free" just "joining for free"? How does this really work?
Lastly, is it realistically possible to derive any form of financial benefit (i.e. greater than the opportunity cost) from online poker without playing multiple games at once? Because that sounds like work... which is the thing I hate most...
I'll take a shot at this even though I may not qualify, i.e. I can't say I know a ton about chess and poker. But these two games, and the relationship between them, is actually one of the things I have recently become most interested in.
Ben, if you recall maybe half a year ago when Steve Nickoloff was trying to get chesstalkers to try his poker site, I was joining in on a lot of his threads. I tried to let everyone know I wasn't affiliated in any way with him or his efforts. He and I kind of hit it off and I respected what he was doing because he was doing it in a respectful manner. So it may have seemed to some that we were in cahoots, but no, we weren't. It was just that my interest in the dichotomy of the two games was such that I wanted to become part of any dialog on the topic. (The definition of dichotomy I'm using here is "conditions perceived as polar extremes or opposites"). In fact, as a result of this interest, I invented a game that I believe to be a middle ground between the two.
Anyway, to get to the questions you bring up (and this is all just my opinion):
1) Whether you are tactical or positional at chess doesn't matter much in the switch to poker. Maybe all it does is tell you what kind of poker style you might be best at. There's the Gus Hansen be-aggressive-with-any-two-cards-to-keep-everyone-guessing style which might equate to a tactical chess player. Or there's the Phil Hellmuth wait-for-the-premium-hands-and-slow-play-to-sucker-people-in style, which probably matches with a patient, positional chess style. But one thing pros keep talking about in poker is switching gears, that is, switching between styles. Perhaps that's easier in poker than in chess, and it is a great ability if you can manage it. In poker, switching styles is ONLY A MATTER OF WILL. You have to WILL yourself to do it. This differs from chess where switching styles is truly a matter of ability. If you have a very strong will, you can do in poker what you can't do in chess.
Memorization, however, is very important in poker. Not so much remembering details, such as actual hands and flops and such, but remembering how your opponents handle different situations. Basically memorizing trends of your opponents, and then making judgements as to whether you think they will continue those trends. Very hard in online poker, much easier in brick and mortar poker where you get to look at your opponents.
I do believe you must have a certain degree of math to really have a chance of lasting success at poker. Certainly not calculus, but good probability knowledge. A good example of this is what is called "pot odds". So if, for example, after the flop you have 4 spades including the Ace, you know what the odds are of getting the 5th spade with 2 more cards to come. You can calculate how big the pot has to be before you come out AHEAD IN THE LONG RUN by staying in the hand. You also need to think about what cards your opponent might have and what are their odds of getting a full house that would beat your flush. And in addition to pot odds, there is something called "implied odds", which is kind of like thinking, even if the pot isn't big enough yet for me to stay in, what is the likelihood of it getting big enough based on how people are betting?
If this is sounding like work to you, well, yes, it is work, but the true poker player loves it. I'll be honest, I don't know how anyone achieves lasting success at ONLINE poker. They truly must have super-fast calculating brains because lasting success there must be all about math. But brick and mortar poker gives psychology and memorization more play, and that's where my preferences lie.
2) most online poker sites let you play with "play chips" for free. They just give you the chips, and you can enter free tournaments in which all you can win is more play chips. As you can imagine, players in these play chip tournaments are quite aggressive and reckless. However, some of the play chip tournaments give you a chance to win free entrance into real money tournaments. I personally right now occasionally play in Ultimate Bet freeroll tournaments, there's usually one each weeknight at 9:15. I also occasionally play in PokerStars freerolls at 10:00 each night. It's almost impossible to win anything because the action moves very fast, the blinds increase quickly, and I just don't have time to use any poker skills. Nevertheless, I've finished 13th and 14th out of about 6,000 entrants, and that has given me a few dollars of real money (whoo-hoo!). I would say I've only done this about 30 to 40 times. So not too bad, really, it's fun and it's free. It just takes a few hours of time when you do it and manage to stay alive. And then, it's frustrating when you come close and don't quite make it. You must be able to handle this, especially if you make the right play and get "sucked out". Don't let that stop you from making that same right play again next time.
3) I really don't know any definitive answer to your last question. I don't play online poker seriously enough. I've done 3 online games at a time, that's not much compared to some diehards, and I find even just 1 online game moves so quickly that skill doesn't come into it (for me). If I can make any suggestion, it might be that you could try the online version for a while, see how you like it and whether it seems like work to you, and if it's fun, try a few brick and mortar tournaments (there's also cash games, where you buy into a table at any time, and exit at any time, it's a totally different game from tournaments). Yes, it does sound like work I'm sure, but poker's version of work is something I'd personally take over almost any other version of work any day (although I do love computer work).
My only problem is I'M MARRIED! lol If you're single and you can afford it, try it out (I'm assuming you have no addiction problems, but if you do, my advice is the opposite: stay away from any poker site or facility).
Hope this helped....
P.S. I'm the opposite type of chess player to you, very positional, and always prone to tactics. I don't play any more, but my interest in chess perseveres because at the highest levels, I think chess has become too positional and drawish. I envy you your tactical abilities. I encourage all chess players to be more creative and to play INTERESTING moves rather than CORRECT moves! Since chess isn't played for much profit anyway, don't worry about the game result, only care about the game artistry.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
P.S. I'm the opposite type of chess player to you, very positional, and always prone to tactics. I don't play any more, but my interest in chess perseveres because at the highest levels, I think chess has become too positional and drawish. I envy you your tactical abilities. I encourage all chess players to be more creative and to play INTERESTING moves rather than CORRECT moves! Since chess isn't played for much profit anyway, don't worry about the game result, only care about the game artistry.
Re: Another Canadian chessplayer who we will lose to the Poker World
Actually, in Dieppe (NB), the club participation has never been worse. Average is three to four players and six is quite rare. This is compared to 12-15 players a week when I joined four years ago, and apparently it used to break 30 occasionally.
Re: Another Canadian chessplayer who we will lose to the Poker World
we had 21 last week in Victoria which is an all time high since I moved here 3 years ago. We get quite a few new visitors but lose people all the time. Jonathan's rule of 30%+ turnover every year for the CFC seems to hold true for the club as well.
Poker, on the other hand, will likely be hurt by the recession. Last year's number of entrants to the WSOP was down from the previous year's record, and I'd expect this year's to be down considerably again, maybe dramatically. Perhaps if enough amateurs decide to stay home, a pro can finally win.
Last year's WSOP entries were down to the inane policy by Harrah's to refuse direct payment of entries from online poker rooms, nothing else. Had this policy not been in place, it would have continued to grow. The "pros" have the 50K HORSE and this years 40K NL if they need something one of "them" can win.
To answer you Ben - the part of chess than helps you be good at poker is the concept of looking ahead and planning. One of the worst things you can do in poker is to take action without having a plan, because when your opponent reacts, you will have to start from scratch. Instinct in poker (like chess) doesn't get you all that far, and playing chess forces you to develop the habit of planning in relation to a very ordered sequence of if-then types of ideas.
Tweet
Comment