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.
Who to watch playing live on the Internet early Sunday morning - Jean Hébert in a must-win situation against Peter Svidler in Russia.....
....or watch former Canadian chess prodigy Jeff Sarwer on the final table at the latest stop for the European Poker Tour in Vilamoura, Portugal? Even if he finishes 8th (out of the final 8) he will win 31,000 euros; if he wins the whole thing - he will take home over 400,000 euros! (buy-in was 5,000 euros)
I'm not sure how familiar you are with poker, so I'll assume little and explain...
It's hard to compare poker results with chess results. While it's very easy for the poker players to ask "why do you so often see the same faces at the final table?", poker still has too much to do with luck to be considered purely a game of skill.
I could cite dozens of examples of players getting the "bad beat" in poker after risking all of their chips with clearly the better hand, only to lose when a card or two hits the table that sees him or her lose the hand, and the tournament.
In chess, you generally have the top players winning more often because skill is way more prevalent than luck (maybe 5% luck?). In poker, there are a lot of people who say luck is only 50% factor, others say more, others less... but there's no question that chess is almost purely skill-based.
If you look at the last six years of World Series of Poker champions and final tables, you'll see what I mean. Players like Chris Moneymaker, who won the 2003 WSOP and has barely won any major money since, made a lot of serious mistakes on his way to winning the largest and richest tournament in the world, only to be saved time and time again by the deck. In chess, the top players may have a bad tournament or two, but near the end of most tournaments, they are right up there on the leader board.
This year, the guy who was major chip leader and finished second place at the WSOP was a logger named Darvin Moon. Moon also made a lot of terrible mistakes, but got lucky when the cards he needed turned up. He is extremely weak compared to Phil Ivey, likely the best poker player in the world, but he knocked Ivey out at this year's final table when his AQ beat Ivey's AK. Moon, who should have folded his AQ in another hand later in the final table, also hit a magic card to oust another player. Does this mean that Moon is better than Ivey? Not a chance... pit them against each other in heads-up play (which is the most comparable to a chess match), and Ivey will crush Moon's amateur play.
Hope that helps...
Jordan
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
Many chessplayers have given up competitive chess in the last decade to take up poker for a living...simply because there is more money available. Some former Canadian chessplayers now earn their living playing Poker. Most still love chess but it simply doesn't pay the bills...poker does. This of course is happening all over the world...in fact some of the top chessplayers in the world today have seriously thought of investing their energies in Poker instead of Chess.
It's hard to compare poker results with chess results. While it's very easy for the poker players to ask "why do you so often see the same faces at the final table?", poker still has too much to do with luck to be considered purely a game of skill.
I could cite dozens of examples of players getting the "bad beat" in poker after risking all of their chips with clearly the better hand, only to lose when a card or two hits the table that sees him or her lose the hand, and the tournament.
In chess, you generally have the top players winning more often because skill is way more prevalent than luck (maybe 5% luck?). In poker, there are a lot of people who say luck is only 50% factor, others say more, others less... but there's no question that chess is almost purely skill-based.
If you look at the last six years of World Series of Poker champions and final tables, you'll see what I mean. Players like Chris Moneymaker, who won the 2003 WSOP and has barely won any major money since, made a lot of serious mistakes on his way to winning the largest and richest tournament in the world, only to be saved time and time again by the deck. In chess, the top players may have a bad tournament or two, but near the end of most tournaments, they are right up there on the leader board.
This year, the guy who was major chip leader and finished second place at the WSOP was a logger named Darvin Moon. Moon also made a lot of terrible mistakes, but got lucky when the cards he needed turned up. He is extremely weak compared to Phil Ivey, likely the best poker player in the world, but he knocked Ivey out at this year's final table when his AQ beat Ivey's AK. Moon, who should have folded his AQ in another hand later in the final table, also hit a magic card to oust another player. Does this mean that Moon is better than Ivey? Not a chance... pit them against each other in heads-up play (which is the most comparable to a chess match), and Ivey will crush Moon's amateur play.
The form of poker that Jordon is referring to above is No Limit Hold Em, in which in any hand, any player may bet his or her whole chip stack at once. This brings luck to the forefront, as Jordon has very well explained.
There is a form of poker called Limit Hold Em in which a player is restricted to betting only certain amounts at every betting stage. This is widely considered a more skillful form of poker, because you can suffer bad beats (in which you were ahead when the betting was done, but a card that helped one of your opponents comes at the end and you lose the hand) and still be in the tournament. As long as you get your money in with the better hand consistently (i.e., play skillfully), the bad beats that come up say 30% of the time will not knock you out and you can win the other 70% of the time and do very well.
But guess what? Limit poker, being much more skillful, suffers from a lack of popularity, so much so that major casinos rarely even hold Limit tournaments. It's hard to make a living at Limit poker even if you're the best Limit player in the world. Does this sound familiar to chessplayers? Of course.
The average amateur poker player won't fork over $5,000 or $10,000 to be in a tournament in which they have almost zero chance of winning (Limit Hold Em). But they WILL fork over that much if they think they have a chance of winning a life-changing amount by reaching the final table (final 9 or 10 players). That's what No Limit offers and that's why it's wildly popular.
As I've written a few times here, chess and poker (No Limit) are on opposite ends of the skill versus luck spectrum. And on opposite ends of the prize money spectrum and media coverage spectrum.
I want very much for chess to get the popularity and media coverage it deserves, and for chess lovers to make money playing chess. I have an idea for a hybrid game that combines the best aspects of No Limit poker and of chess. In the months to come I will be contacting companies that can manufacture the special cards needed to make this game playable, and in the spring I expect to run some local trials, inviting both poker and chess players to participate. If all goes well, this could really take off, because it offers the possibility of seeing the best of the poker world square off against the best of the chess world. Both poker psychology and chess calculation skills are needed to win.
I would expect this game to fall in the middle of the spectrums I've described above. Jordon, you mentioned heads up poker being much more skillful than tournament poker, and really that's not as much the case as poker players would like it to be. Heads up poker is still very much a luckfest. Also, I don't know if you have seen on NBC the National Heads Up Poker Championship (it's been on in the spring, for the last 4 or 5 years in a row; I think if you go to nbc.com, and do a search on poker, you can watch past broadcasts online). They try and make it exciting, but it's really boring. There just isn't enough depth in the heads up game to make it interesting.
My hybrid idea is also heads up, but it will be far more exciting to watch than heads up poker. Both chess and poker commentators would be needed to explain what's going on. The viewer would really get a sense that there's many layers of skill involved. But unlike regular chess matches, talk between the players would be encouraged and attending fans would NOT be expected to be quiet. Also unlike regular chess matches, it would not be one long drawn-out match, but would be a string of something similar to poker "hands", often (but not always) culminating in short rounds of chess.
A poker player that knows nothing of chess would not last long in this hybrid game, I would expect, so the onus will be on them to brush up on chess.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Many chessplayers have given up competitive chess in the last decade to take up poker for a living...simply because there is more money available. Some former Canadian chessplayers now earn their living playing Poker. Most still love chess but it simply doesn't pay the bills...poker does. This of course is happening all over the world...in fact some of the top chessplayers in the world today have seriously thought of investing their energies in Poker instead of Chess.
Tweet
Comment