Jonathon Berry mentioned in Moron's blog...

[Paul Bonham]

Re: No upsets? That makes me upset!

:(

Paul, I have to disagree. You are saying that there are never any upsets, the top seeded chess players alway win the event, always..always....never an upset, we can always predict the winner....no surprises...never! :( Quite a statement. I am quite sure you're wrong, but I'm not going to spend any time digging thru the statistics! (but I'm sure somebody in chesstalkland will LOL )

Sorry, Bob, I'm not saying there are never upsets. After all, that would be saying that the rating system is always perfect! LOL!

But look at all the past Canadian Opens, which as you know are one big section. Probably in the top 5 or even 10 positions each year, you will not see anyone rated under 2200. Or maybe I shouldn't put an exact rating, because maybe some years 2200 was near the top rating in the tournament. So lets say you won't see anyone whose rating is not in the top 20% of ratings for the tournament.

What I'm saying is not "we can always predict the winner", but rather, "we can always predict a handful of players from which the winner will come, and the winner will 95% of the time be among those handful of players".

There can be rare exceptions to this, for example what could be called the "shooting star" player. Some young kid who's real skill level is 2200+, but who for lack of actual games is rated 1700. But the following year, that kid will be rated 2200+ and he'll never look back.

Of course, not all tournaments are like the Canadian Open. Many have sections of say 200 rating points, such as U2000 where the next section down is U1800. On a rare occasion, a low-1800s player might win that section (and would usually go dozens of similar tournaments before coming close again, unless s/he had put in a ton of work to suddenly improve). But when you have sections, you have lower prizes and lower recognition. Poker tournaments don't use sections. If you are good enough and lucky enough to win, you win the top prize and the ultimate recognition.

Bob, have you ever gone to a Canadian Open and actually thought you could win the tournament?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Jonathon Berry mentioned in Moron's blog...

...

As I see you are well informed about poker. May you confirm that poker as much published books as chess by their best players? (comparable to Alekhine, Fischer (60s), Kasparov (excluding how life) about chess game)

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Jonathon Berry mentioned in Moron's blog...

Hi Paul, that's an interesting point. However, I would suggest that not everyone values similar things similarly. For example, I believe that some people would actually prefer the consistency of more regular results. You can actually see that in online poker, where lower-level semi-pros will grind out lower-level ring games, or even SNGs, for hours daily.

However, by doing so, such players are at risk of engraining psychological biases that will hinder them in massive MTTs, where quite quickly at lower buy-ins, the remaining stacks are very low multiples of the blinds and antes, necessitating high aggression.

This leads me to what I find most interesting about poker, which is how psychological makeup, including relative social interaction, actually profoundly influence how one plays poker. Whereas chess, in my opinion, can be played more "autistically" than poker, etc.

On the other hand, what I value most about chess is that "artistic creativity" feeling a player gets when he weaves a special game, especially for me anyway, when it feels like a successful endgame study. I have never gotten that big a rush from a "move" in poker.

Anyway, just my 2c worth. I would like to continue playing lots of both chess and poker!

Good points, Aris, and I acknowledge that some do prefer more consistent, regular results. Perhaps I should have constrained the choices in the question to tournament poker vs. tournament chess.

[David Ottosen]

Re: Jonathon Berry mentioned in Moron's blog...

But I really wonder about your last statement. If the money were equal, I personally would try and play both of them, to balance things out. But if I had to choose, I'd go with poker, because it's more social and fun. I think the serious and good chess players get too hung up on having to win. Also, if you are someone who could make equal money either way, why choose chess when you can always find a computer to give you a good game? But with poker, even playing online isn't the same, only the real thing is as good as the real thing.

I believe that most people exposed to both games feel that poker is essentially a boring and shallow game, where success is mostly determined by self control. Chess is a lot deeper game that allows for more interesting matches day by day.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Jonathon Berry mentioned in Moron's blog...

I believe that most people exposed to both games feel that poker is essentially a boring and shallow game, where success is mostly determined by self control. Chess is a lot deeper game that allows for more interesting matches day by day.

Ok, David, it seems you have researched this before and I'll defer to what you seem to have found out. It's all very subjective. I personally found that chess gave me migraine-level headaches that I don't normally get, that's the main reason I stopped playing, that plus the disadvantage of not taking it up until my 20s and so not knowing extensive opening lines.

It would be very interesting to pose this question to people exposed substantially to both games and get both their answer and their reasons in writing, anonymously. I think the way it should be worded is: "Assume you could make equal amounts of money by either playing tournament poker for a living or playing tournament chess for a living. Which would you choose and why?"

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: No upsets? That makes me upset!

Bob, have you ever gone to a Canadian Open and actually thought you could win the tournament?

zzzzzzz...:)hmmmmm.....Yes,:o er.... No, er.... Maybe? What?
Hey, it could happen! I just need the right cards dealt, eh! LOL

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Jonathon Berry mentioned in Moron's blog...

I personally found that chess gave me migraine-level headaches that I don't normally get ..."

That's usually because one's brain doesn't normally work much. It's called atrophy through lack of training. At first try to make it work 10 minutes a day, and then gradually add a couple of minutes a week. By 2020 you should be functionning normally at least 4 hours a day.

[Jason Lohner]

Re: Jonathon Berry mentioned in Moron's blog...

1) re: Morphy - the USA of the 1800s was far from the USA of the 1960/70s. Fischer certainly would have gained some notoriety, but nothing to the extent that he did. Instead of being an ongoing daily headline due to his crazy behaviour, he would have been a small sidebar in the paper with "American gets great chess result".

2) re: Polgar - it's not quite as simple as you indicate. First, it's far from clear the USCF has anything to apologize for - it seems pretty clear that Truong engaged in some really dirty behaviour including fake internet posts that could very well have been defamatory. Even putting aside who was right/wrong, by apologizing, the USCF would admit guilt in the matter and open themselves to substantial lawsuits - it is far from as simple as "USCF says sorry, matter disappears".

1. I disagree, Morphy's legend went on for years, even when other world champions pointed out some errors in his games. Although the conditions were not the same, the animosity that the US felt towards Europe (specifically England) can be compared to the animosity that they felt towards the Soviets. Morphy did not need to degenerate into crass rude behavior.

2. I was a very active participant of the Usenet newsgroups when the whole 'fake sam sloan' posts were occurring. Sam Sloan is a total loon, and more than once I asked him to stop spamming newsgroups with off topic posts. A vast majority of the people who post on those newsgroups had already added Mr Sloan to their respective 'twit filters'. The same goes for Ray Parker. Mr Parker even threatened to sue me, I laughed and told him go go ahead. Even if Mr Truong did post those fake messages, it would have had zero affect on the election results. Mr Sloan had already completely destroyed his reputation. Mr Sloan was certainly suggesting that when he visited the Polgar house when they were teenagers that he slept with Susan Polgar as an underaged minor. The problem with the USCF is that S.P. upset the power structure that has been there for years. At this point the USCF won't even allow her to become a member. She can't play in any rated games because of this... I remember all of this when it was going on, as I was part of the debate on Usenet.

[David Ottosen]

Re: Jonathon Berry mentioned in Moron's blog...

1. I disagree, Morphy's legend went on for years, even when other world champions pointed out some errors in his games. Although the conditions were not the same, the animosity that the US felt towards Europe (specifically England) can be compared to the animosity that they felt towards the Soviets. Morphy did not need to degenerate into crass rude behavior.

My belief is that the social norms of the 1800s were different than the social norms of the 1960s. Had Fischer been a total gentleman, said "I respect all the players and thanks to all the organizers", the whole confrontational aspect of Fischer vs Russians would have been much less newsworthy. He made it newsworthy by his constant statements and his Sports illustrated article on the subject.

2. I was a very active participant of the Usenet newsgroups when the whole 'fake sam sloan' posts were occurring....The problem with the USCF is that S.P. upset the power structure that has been there for years. At this point the USCF won't even allow her to become a member. She can't play in any rated games because of this... I remember all of this when it was going on, as I was part of the debate on Usenet.

Whether or not it affected the reputation of Sloan/Parker (both of whom I'm also familiar with from usenet, and on whose sanity/lack thereof I agree with you), the fact of the matter is that if Truong posted them, he was committing an offense. The fact that he's a loon, or that he has done worse to her, does not justify Truong's actions.

By claiming he didn't make these posts, and suing the USCF, what choice do she and Truong leave them? It has nothing to do with the power structure of the USCF.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Jonathon Berry mentioned in Moron's blog...

That's usually because one's brain doesn't normally work much. It's called atrophy through lack of training. At first try to make it work 10 minutes a day, and then gradually add a couple of minutes a week. By 2020 you should be functionning normally at least 4 hours a day.

so THAT'S what you've been doing the past 40 years! And you're up to 4 hours a day, just enough to play most chess games.

Of course this doesn't apply to me, as I do plenty of heavy-duty thinking in my current profession without headaches. Sorry, Jean, you wouldn't know about that, I'm talking about the REAL WORLD.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: Jonathon Berry mentioned in Moron's blog...

As an afterthought,it occured to me that your observations,Zeljko,support my argument.The chessplayer in question(a) should have been confronted about his behaviour,and/or(b) ejected from the tournament.As neither happened,the behaviour was re-inforced and continued unabated.

As many will recall, I did this once, but had my ruling overturned by an appeals committee. Then all hell broke loose.

Heather stated to me that it was ironic that it took a friend of Bryon, who risked losing his friendship, to finally do what was right, what should have been done long ago. I too find it ironic.

It is remarkable how often the late Bryon Nickoloff is mentioned herein. And to some extent it sickens me. For so very few of you knew who Bryon truly was.

Thank you Heather for continuing to be a part of the chess community.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Jonathon Berry mentioned in Moron's blog...

I do plenty of heavy-duty thinking in my current profession without headaches.

The kind of thing that George W. Bush would say.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Jonathon Berry mentioned in Moron's blog...

As many will recall, I did this once, but had my ruling overturned by an appeals committee. Then all hell broke loose.

Heather stated to me that it was ironic that it took a friend of Bryon, who risked losing his friendship, to finally do what was right, what should have been done long ago. I too find it ironic.

It is remarkable how often the late Bryon Nickoloff is mentioned herein. And to some extent it sickens me. For so very few of you knew who Bryon truly was.

Thank you Heather for continuing to be a part of the chess community.

Addicts move from pre-contemplation where they don't think they have any problem to contemplation where they think maybe I have a problem to further on the recovery scale and often go back and forth, relapse is part of treatment. I've seen people living homeless, jailed several times a week and they never begin to address their problem. I've seen clients of mine have their children taken away and that might get them into contemplation but then they might just blame the CAS and go back to pre-contemplation. Movement is caused by the addict themselves not by browbeating them or jailing them or yelling at them, if they don't see what's happening to them you are not going to move them until they are ready to move. People who are in jail continue to use, whatever they can get their hands on. If you could treatment would consist of being in a locked room and having someone yell at you for several hours until you agree to the error of your ways. The first thing any addiction counsellor has told us in training is that you can't work harder than the client in solving their own problem otherwise it is not going to be solved. The first step in treatment is harm reduction, okay you are having 24 bottles of beer a night or a full bottle of vodka every night, can you cut that down to 23 bottles for the next week or 3 fewer shots each night and we'll go from there. That's why wet shelters are so successful.

Gambling addicts have embezeled millions of dollars to feed their addiction, if it was me I might see that I have a problem after the first million, others just seem to continue until they are found out.

Based on the last talk I went to at OMSSA by Dr Jim Cullen from CAMH often addicts have a mental health issue concurrent to their addiction, for which they are self medicating with drugs. You can't solve the addiction until you start to address the underlying mental health issues causing the addiciton. Whether it be past abuse or trauma, poor relationship choices or borderline personality disorders. Yes friends and relatives who know the person should probably help more than strangers.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Jonathon Berry mentioned in Moron's blog...

long time sufferer of illegal drug and alcohol addiction

Everybody has faults and I am no exception, but those particular ones, in the defamatory part of the blog entry, I happen to have less than the average bear. He may be a 2600+ GM, but he's not brilliant at inventing. It's not even entertaining. He doesn't have spies or intuition or powers of observation or secret knowledge, he just invents for effect. The worst thing is that that is how he treats an 81-year-old lady who has bestowed uncounted kindnesses upon the chess community, from running their chess tournaments for free to feeding them at her own house.

So, Kevin, be a Mensch, and apologize to Lynn.

The victims of ks blog have friends, brothers, sisters, spouses, neighbours, business associates, colleagues, children, grandchildren, mothers and fathers who are all shocked and upset by an encounter with ks's rubbish-disguised-as-truth. It's not a joke or a "roast".

I agree with Zeljko's early posts in this thread. Now that we've established beyond doubt what is what, there is no need to (re-) publish blog droppings. I am, of course, not a lawyer, but there may be good legal reasons, as well, not to republish defamatory statements.

[David Ottosen]

Re: Jonathon Berry mentioned in Moron's blog...

It would be very interesting to pose this question to people exposed substantially to both games and get both their answer and their reasons in writing, anonymously. I think the way it should be worded is: "Assume you could make equal amounts of money by either playing tournament poker for a living or playing tournament chess for a living. Which would you choose and why?"

I posted the question in the chess forum of the major internet poker forum (2+2). So far, it's 9-0 chess.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/14...-forum-615548/