Math, Robots, Stupidity: JCW, ChipTrader, Doug Hull - a Debate on this Forum

1234689

Comments

  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Imperator wrote: »
    An example: In the past good players had a feel for SPR but noone actually realized its full significance and measured it consistently until, I believe, our own Ed Miller actually established the concept. Someone correct me on my history.

    I don't know if it was Miller, Flynn or Mehta who came up with this, or what combination thereof, but Professional No Limit Holdem Vol. 1 is essential for describing SPRs, stack commitment, and thresholds.

    Yes, it was one of the first books I read, just before I started playing seriously. It is a good conceptual framework. I am rereading now because I think I understand the praxis of the theory better now.

    According to "Poker Bank" it was coined by Ed Miller. But we have Ed who can answer this question.

    I think it is an interesting question. Miller himself was educated in physics. He realizes the importance of concepts for understanding and constructing theories. It is actually the conceptual framework that tells us what to measure and where to measure.

    As with all concepts of this type I am sure SPR was "in the air" long before Flynn, Mehta, Miller got it into print.

    As I have mentioned before, my academic field was the philosophy and history of science. But I love the history of games. (I am an amateur expert on the history of chess.) I would love to investigate (and write about) the history of poker. This would be a long term project. If I could fund my poker history research by playing poker this would be a definition of happiness for me.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    An even better one might be chess. There, you have the concept of "candidate moves" which translates fairly well into what we're trying to do in poker. Books such as this would help in that regard.
    http://www.amazon.com/Process-Decision-Making-Chess-Mastering-ebook/dp/B00BC0JXEQ

    "Having read this book, you will acquire all the tools needed to break down the complex (and often difficult!) question of "what should I do in a given position?" into a number of much easier and simple questions; Combining the answers to these questions, you will come up with the right plan and find the best moves in every situation."

    The Hippopotamus in the Marsh

    I was going to write a post on decision making in chess vs. decision making in poker. I was going to compare the idea of analyzing variations in chess with planning a hand and bet sizing in poker. But I wanted to wait until I got better on the latter. I still don't plan my hands well.

    But let me say a little about the history of "candidate moves". The great Soviet chess trainer Alexander Kotov popularized the concept in his classic book Think Like a Grandmaster. This was a book that I read in 1972 at age 13, so I have my own personal history with it.

    But I want to say several things here:
    • The concept of candidate move selection is very important and is now used in several games. That this concept or a similar concept has not been applied to poker (as far as I know) is telling about how young poker is.
    • Candidate moves had been used by chess players for years but it was only Kotov who actually developed the concept in the 1950's. This is very similar to what I said above about the concept of SPR and it's full conceptualization by Miller.
    • Kotov's focus was on training young masters and developing good chess players. The greatest chess players were always skeptical about how candidate moves could be applied in practice. Please everybody read this by my favorite chess player of all time Mikhail Tal. It is known by chess player as the problem of thinking about The Hippopotamus in the Marsh. ChipX and Jeff I think you will both enjoy this little story.
    • Also, you have to realize that the chess player behind this idea of candidate moves was the first really modern chess thinker Mikhail Botvinnik. I bring this up because Botvinnik was an early computer theorist who was very familiar with both information theory and game theory. The connection between Claude Shannon's Information Theory, GTO, and computer theory goes back a long way in chess. How old are these ideas in poker?
    • Mikhail Botvinnik's life long project was to get computers to simulate human chess thinking. He thought that this was a good way to investigate the faults and power of human decision making.
    • But this is not how we use computers in chess today. Computers use brute-force calculation in depth to analyze the best moves.
    • The irony is that the life long project of people who followed behind Kotov was to try to get people to think more like computers. And the only way to do this was to develop candidate moves and develop a variation trees to analyze.
    • The project of people who study decision making in chess is closer to Botvinnik's project. These are the psychologists of chess.
    • The project of people like Phillip Ochman is closer to Kotov's project of trying to get people to think more like computers. These are the chess trainers who have learned from the old Soviet School.
    • The great World Champion who mastered Kotov's way of thinking was Karpov.
    • The great World Champion who genuinely wanted to understand Tal's point about the "Hippopotamus in the Marsh" and apply it to Botvinniks project and computer theory was Kasparov. Or to put in the terms the Soviets used to use so simplistically Kotov was the Thesis, Tal was the Antithesis, and Kasparov was the Synthesis.

    My basic point here is that poker, the study of poker systematically, the study of poker thinking, is very, very young. Chess has a 125 year history of serious study in "how to think in chess." That history is intimately connected to every stage of modern psychology, mathematics, and computer theory. This is partially because "chess is a game of complete information" as we are constantly reminded by the cliche and poker is not. But the cliche is only half-right on both sides of the equation.

    For me the excitement I feel for this poker site is that many of the coaches are half-consciously trying to catch up with chess decision theory, chess computer analysis, chess psychology, chess training, etc. We need great poker training, poker decision theory, poker computer analysis, poker psychology on a level far beyond what we have now.

    Why don't we have it? For the same reason that chess is taught in the schools and a card game like bridge is considered "sophisticated." Poker is considered a game for hustlers. It is a game for the venues of gambling. It is a game for money. Well let me tell you, all of those things are true for chess and bridge also.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    edited April 2016
    Imperator wrote: »
    I also think you do not give enough credit to modern learning theory. Simply reading a book like Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow will show that we have made a tiny bit of progress. It is tiny by the way.

    Literally bought this book a month ago but haven't started it yet because I'm committed to finishing Infinite Jest before I read one more printed word (maybe even including this thread).

    Definitely read Infinite Jest first. Actually that novel is a classic in what might be called tangled decision (non)-theory. I would also suggest another novel that is at the origins of Wallace's type of writing The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gent. by Lawrence Sterne.

    But back to Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman's Nobel was in economics. Why did a psychologist win a Nobel in economics? Because that's the prize psychologists who study decision making get for the obvious reason that our society values the dismal science of economics over psychology, pure and simple.

    But the fact is that poker players probably have more to learn from what has become known as "behavioral economics" than any other field of economics.

    Also Kahneman's later work was on cognitive biases. Please look at how Kahneman studied things like the "focusing illusion," how people estimate pleasure and pain when considering immediate and long term decisions, how people "anchor" their estimation of probabilities by establishing a context that has little to do with the actual possible outcomes. All of these concepts you will find important in your study of why poker players make good and bad decisons.

    Also as a follower of Maslow you may be interested that Kahneman's research throws light on the cognitive bias known as "Maslow's Hammer." To quote the cliche and to quote Maslow at he same time, "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." This cognitive bias is very similar to "the streetlight effect" (see post above).

    We only use the tools that we have, whether they fit the need or not, and we only search where there is light whether we lost our keys there or not.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,003 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Imperator wrote: »
    This is partially because "chess is a game of complete information" as we are constantly reminded by the cliche and poker is not. But the cliche is only half-right on both sides of the equation.

    I very much agree with this.
    Imperator wrote: »
    Why don't we have it? For the same reason that chess is taught in the schools and a card game like bridge is considered "sophisticated." Poker is considered a game for hustlers. It is a game for the venues of gambling.

    As someone recently pointed out though, MIT has a class on it now, so we're getting there.

    The only additional point I'd like to add is that we shouldn't worry about playing poker even if the study becomes very advanced. Just like in chess - even though the study is very advanced, there will still always be people playing at the lowest levels, as well.

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 4,070 -
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Imperator wrote: »
    This is partially because "chess is a game of complete information" as we are constantly reminded by the cliche and poker is not. But the cliche is only half-right on both sides of the equation.

    I very much agree with this.
    Imperator wrote: »
    Why don't we have it? For the same reason that chess is taught in the schools and a card game like bridge is considered "sophisticated." Poker is considered a game for hustlers. It is a game for the venues of gambling.

    As someone recently pointed out though, MIT has a class on it now, so we're getting there.

    The only additional point I'd like to add is that we shouldn't worry about playing poker even if the study becomes very advanced. Just like in chess - even though the study is very advanced, there will still always be people playing at the lowest levels, as well.

    And we'll always have PLO
    Moderation In Moderation
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,003 ✭✭✭✭✭
    lol, or better yet Big O.
  • Matt BerkeyMatt Berkey Red Chipper, RCP Coach Posts: 278 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2016
    Just as a general aside, I've referenced this thread multiple times when pitching The Academy to potential attendees who are on the fence. I heavily encourage everyone to read it, reread it, digest and read it again. These concepts aren't being discussed elsewhere.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 4,070 -
    Just as a general aside, I've referenced this thread multiple times when pitching The Academy to potential attendees who are on the fence. I heavily encourage everyone to read it, reread it, digest and read it again. These concepts aren't being discussed elsewhere.

    I must be very slow because I can't find many tangible concepts being discussed.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    Just as a general aside, I've referenced this thread multiple times when pitching The Academy to potential attendees who are on the fence. I heavily encourage everyone to read it, reread it, digest and read it again. These concepts aren't being discussed elsewhere.

    I must be very slow because I can't find many tangible concepts being discussed.

    It is a mission statement.
  • ChipXtractorChipXtractor Red Chipper Posts: 1,193 ✭✭✭✭
    Imperator wrote: »
    It is a mission statement.

    Love it.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 4,070 -
    Imperator wrote: »
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    Just as a general aside, I've referenced this thread multiple times when pitching The Academy to potential attendees who are on the fence. I heavily encourage everyone to read it, reread it, digest and read it again. These concepts aren't being discussed elsewhere.

    I must be very slow because I can't find many tangible concepts being discussed.

    It is a mission statement.

    When marketing specialists overran academia they emphasized that mission statements should be concise ;-)
    Moderation In Moderation
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 4,070 -
    Imperator kicked off this thread by talking about quantifying uncertainty, which is ironic from my perspective since I find the signal-to-noise above to be very low. But let's develop that quantification.

    Take the publication of Sklansky's "Theory of Poker" as a somewhat arbitrary baseline. Since that time, what percentage of the advance in the understanding of poker can be characterized as "mathematical" in nature?

    And to those of you who have apparently peered behind the curtain of "transcendental poker", what percentage of the advance in the understanding of poker over the next 20 years will be non-mathematical?
    Moderation In Moderation
  • Matt BerkeyMatt Berkey Red Chipper, RCP Coach Posts: 278 ✭✭✭
    The math manipulations are restricted to how they correlate to manipulating the human element. Until bots play bots, the greatest exploits will be in human nature
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    Imperator wrote: »
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    Just as a general aside, I've referenced this thread multiple times when pitching The Academy to potential attendees who are on the fence. I heavily encourage everyone to read it, reread it, digest and read it again. These concepts aren't being discussed elsewhere.

    I must be very slow because I can't find many tangible concepts being discussed.

    It is a mission statement.

    When marketing specialists overran academia they emphasized that mission statements should be concise ;-)

    Then call it a manifesto.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    The math manipulations are restricted to how they correlate to manipulating the human element. Until bots play bots, the greatest exploits will be in human nature

    This is exactly what I've been trying to get across in other posts:

    I learned this from chess: When you are learning the game there are four poles of concentration tactics/strategy and calculation/psychology.

    I have been arguing that coaches and teachers often concentrate on one pole or another. Sweeney called these "the four cornerstones". The reason I want to put these things in terms of polar divides is because in my observation they interpenetrate in a very special way. Students who concentrate on one pole usually ignore the other, or only approach the other pole through their major concentration.

    Also, coaches/teachers tend to concentration both on what they love and what they were once weakest at performing.

    Ideally when we learn poker we will become better at all of these elements at once. But that is the ideal.

    Back to Berkey's point. Calculation matters within the psychological element and vice versa.; without one the other becomes only a baseline. The same is true with the strategy and tactics divide.

    I disagree with you on one thing. The idea of excellence -- tactical, strategic, calculative, psychological, -- has advanced tremendously since Sklansky's Theory was published. This was one of the first poker books I ever read. I read it when it first came out in the late eighties and I read it to get insights into chess, not poker, as weird as this may seem to you.

    But it was from this book that I first got the idea that poker could be a progressive game, a game that could reach for excellence in the same way as chess does.

    The mathematics has certainly progressed also. But I don't limit the math to GTO, but I also take into account mathematics which have to do with decision theory, information theory, and energy flow in an ecological systems. I take into account this mathematics, and I'm trying to figure out it's application, because these systems factor in the psychological element into the calculative element.

    This is my manifesto. This is my challenge. Make poker a game of excellence.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    I meant in above that I disagree with The GameCat. Great handle by the way.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,003 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Imperator wrote: »
    I meant in above that I disagree with The GameCat.

    Unclear what you're disagreeing with since he was just asking questions :-)
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Imperator wrote: »
    I meant in above that I disagree with The GameCat.

    Unclear what you're disagreeing with since he was just asking questions :-)

    He disagrees with GameKat saying there are no concepts in this thread.

    I agree with Imperartor. This thread of full of things needed to win at a high level.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2016
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Imperator wrote: »
    I meant in above that I disagree with The GameCat.

    Unclear what you're disagreeing with since he was just asking questions :-)

    I took his question about the advance in poker, or lack there of, since Sklanksky's Theoryas far as mathematics is concerned to have been a rhetorical question, especially since the next question was definitely rhetorical with interesting references to glancing behind the curtain presumably to discover the wizard of "transcendental poker." There is nothing bad about this rhetoric and it does perform the act of expressing skepticism, quite fair, but I didn't think that questions were meant to be answered.

    But I did answer the question. I think there has been a fair amount of advance in "thinking in poker" in all four corner stones of study, i.e. tactics, strategy, calculation (mathematics included), psychology.

    So yes those were my answers to GameCat's questions. I could point specifically to the advances I'm writing about and I could also write about the reasons why those advances occurred in the last 20 years. (I think too much like a Marxist historian schooled in physics... a clue to my previous posts.) And perhaps I will do just that in future posts.

    Poker is about 70 years behind chess in its level of thinking. But I think we are catching up quickly. But let me give you an idea of where I'm going .... It was actually statistics and calculation (eventually aided by computers) that fueled the study of chess psychology and I think it is the same with poker.

    It is the ability to calculate better, to use math better, that fuels the advance of the psychological aspects of poker. I am not sure this is what Berkey is getting at, but I think it underlies his thinking whether he realizes it or not.

    But the polar divided is between calculation/psychology and in many games it is these two elements that fuel each other. Ask yourself: Why is this so? Ask yourself why this is so? Why do advances in such mathematical calculi so often lead to advances in psychology?
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    Writing very quickly: And not re-reading. I'm in hospital at the moment (taking care of family) and this is an enjoyable break while waiting in the lounge. It is not conducive to actual editing of posts so excuse all of the repetitions and repentance.
  • KemahPhilKemahPhil Red Chipper Posts: 108 ✭✭
    A lot of these discussions about poker theory get somewhat warped IMHO by the concentration on the poker literature. None of the concepts represented in the books about poker were invented recently. They have been around for many years and were consistently used by the better poker players. The only thing new is that more people are writing about them and coining terms for concepts that have been an integral part of the game for a long time.

    More people are reading these books and picking up the concepts through an educational process separate from actually playing the game. For many of those people, this works fairly well and they can apply the concepts to the actual game. For many others, they seem to pick up the terminology without really understanding the application and their results are uneven to say the least.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Imperator wrote: »
    I meant in above that I disagree with The GameCat.

    Unclear what you're disagreeing with since he was just asking questions :-)

    He disagrees with GameKat saying there are no concepts in this thread.

    I agree with Imperartor. This thread of full of things needed to win at a high level.

    Yes, Soto, is correct. The conceptual apparatus of this thread has been elaborated upon over and over again.

    But I think GameCat is also correct because what he is looking for is some thing else. He is looking for better tactics and strategy and to expand his basic tool-box. There is nothing wrong with looking for formulas of tactics/strategy. And GameCat is correct that they are not here in this thread

    This is not to be dismissive of such ways of thinking. I too am still developing my skill sets. The more I incorporate the basic concepts and formulas into my tool-box the better I will become at all of the things I am writing about here. For instance the better you are at hand-reading the better you are putting psychological pressure on your opponent. The tool-box is mostly there to help us to think quickly over-the-felt what we calculate slowly with the aid of media and deep thought off-the-felt.

    But to believe that the tool-box should be the main focus of study is a kind of fetish. It is true that all of us are potchkies at one time or another, even when we are great poker players. So we constantly need to rework and re-develop are tool-box. And new concepts are coming to the fore all the time. But it is partially the kind of thinking that dismisses everything outside of what you immediately need to improve the tools you have that I think is holding back the search for poker excellence. The other thing that are holding back poker excellence is the "cultural" aspects of poker that I have often talked about and the idea that poker is all about the money.

    It is the psychological aspects of the game that allows us to employ the tool-box in real time.
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2016
    KemahPhil wrote: »
    A lot of these discussions about poker theory get somewhat warped IMHO by the concentration on the poker literature. None of the concepts represented in the books about poker were invented recently. They have been around for many years and were consistently used by the better poker players. The only thing new is that more people are writing about them and coining terms for concepts that have been an integral part of the game for a long time.

    Yes, I want to agree and disagree with you.

    But if you read the posts in this thread about the concept of SPR and the concept of candidate moves in chess, I make the exact same point that you are making here.
    Imperator wrote: »
    • Candidate moves had been used by chess players for years but it was only Kotov who actually developed the concept in the 1950's. This is very similar to what I said above about the concept of SPR and it's full conceptualization by Miller.
    ....

    .... My basic point here is that poker, the study of poker systematically, the study of poker thinking, is very, very young. Chess has a 125 year history of serious study in "how to think in chess." That history is intimately connected to every stage of modern psychology, mathematics, and computer theory. This is partially because "chess is a game of complete information" as we are constantly reminded by the cliche and poker is not. But the cliche is only half-right on both sides of the equation.

    Poker players have used their own decision trees in poker for years. But why has there been very little conceptualization of how those decision trees best work in poker? Because poker is about 70 years behind chess in these things. Because poker was a "hustler's" game for a long time after chess became "a science" (according to the Soviet School) or "art" according to Fischer. Only now are we taking poker seriously enough to develop the kind of expertise we need to bring it to the next level.

    Or compare tennis and pool. Tennis was a high class game full of hustlers and pool was a working class game full of hustlers. This was similar to the difference between bridge and poker. Tennis and pool are both games of skill but tennis has a lot more props than pool.

    And again I want to bring my grandmother up. My grandmother only played stud and she only had a 6th grade education. But she used to practice things that we now call "combinatorics".... she called it "making and hitting the cards". She used to have a concept of pot odds and I think a rudimentary concept of what would develop into ideas about equity. She called it "the price for the pot" and "pricing the vig." This was back in the mid-sixties before there were any poker theory books.

    I am not talking about books. Books are just one carrier of information. I am writing about all forms of media here, including my grandmother's oral history of her poker biography.

    My academic background is in the philosophy and history of science. I am very much interested in how concepts develop and are applied. I am very much interested in the psychological and sociological aspects of conceptual development. I am also an amateur historian of chess. I am interested in how games develop and are perfected.

    So take this thread as my mission statement for myself as a poker player and my manifesto for what I want poker to become.

    A little too much? Right?

  • Matt BerkeyMatt Berkey Red Chipper, RCP Coach Posts: 278 ✭✭✭
    Imperator wrote: »
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Imperator wrote: »
    I meant in above that I disagree with The GameCat.

    Unclear what you're disagreeing with since he was just asking questions :-)

    He disagrees with GameKat saying there are no concepts in this thread.

    I agree with Imperartor. This thread of full of things needed to win at a high level.

    Yes, Soto, is correct. The conceptual apparatus of this thread has been elaborated upon over and over again.

    But I think GameCat is also correct because what he is looking for is some thing else. He is looking for better tactics and strategy and to expand his basic tool-box. There is nothing wrong with looking for formulas of tactics/strategy. And GameCat is correct that they are not here in this thread

    This is not to be dismissive of such ways of thinking. I too am still developing my skill sets. The more I incorporate the basic concepts and formulas into my tool-box the better I will become at all of the things I am writing about here. For instance the better you are at hand-reading the better you are putting psychological pressure on your opponent. The tool-box is mostly there to help us to think quickly over-the-felt what we calculate slowly with the aid of media and deep thought off-the-felt.

    But to believe that the tool-box should be the main focus of study is a kind of fetish. It is true that all of us are potchkies at one time or another, even when we are great poker players. So we constantly need to rework and re-develop are tool-box. And new concepts are coming to the fore all the time. But it is partially the kind of thinking that dismisses everything outside of what you immediately need to improve the tools you have that I think is holding back the search for poker excellence. The other thing that are holding back poker excellence is the "cultural" aspects of poker that I have often talked about and the idea that poker is all about the money.

    It is the psychological aspects of the game that allows us to employ the tool-box in real time.

    Nailed it. The linear thinking people apply to this game/word problem allow a massive edge to be derived by simply applying a different line of thinking. They're forced to continually play more perfectly according to current restraints, until a new trend/exploit emerges. While the abstract thinker can employ a less perfect strategy due to the greater magnitude of errors it causes; concept of sacrificing little ev edges in order to create larger ones as the hand/game progresses
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    Imperator kicked off this thread by talking about quantifying uncertainty, which is ironic from my perspective since I find the signal-to-noise above to be very low. But let's develop that quantification.

    This skepticism is appropriate. It is the kind of skepticism that I expect a physicist to express when confronting arguments that sound philosophical and psychological. To incorporate his skepticism within this way of thinking is a good idea.

    TheGameKat, let me also apologize for getting your handle wrong in the above.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 4,070 -
    jeffnc wrote: »
    Imperator wrote: »
    I meant in above that I disagree with The GameCat.

    Unclear what you're disagreeing with since he was just asking questions :-)

    He disagrees with GameKat saying there are no concepts in this thread.

    I agree with Imperartor. This thread of full of things needed to win at a high level.

    What I said was I don't find many *tangible* concepts. The two that have been clearly stated - that excellence requires a financial and emotional detachment - both pre-date John Scarne.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 4,070 -
    Imperator wrote: »
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    Imperator kicked off this thread by talking about quantifying uncertainty, which is ironic from my perspective since I find the signal-to-noise above to be very low. But let's develop that quantification.

    This skepticism is appropriate. It is the kind of skepticism that I expect a physicist to express when confronting arguments that sound philosophical and psychological. To incorporate his skepticism within this way of thinking is a good idea.

    TheGameKat, let me also apologize for getting your handle wrong in the above.

    No worries on the handle, you actually returned it to the spelling Jeff Noon intended.

    As to the rest, the reason I am chiming in here is that I find it quite plausible that the intangibles that you and Berkey are presenting are important, I'm just finding it difficult to determine what you're getting at. I suspect some of it is related to Soto's assertion that he doesn't need to look for a good game, he creates one.

    Specifically, I'd be very interested if you could expand a bit on the sort of psychological developments in chess that have outstripped those in poker.

    And regarding linear thinking and tool-kits... I used to teach chess in an Inner London grade school. On more than one occasion a precocious student would tell me that they wanted to play like Tal. I encouraged such a goal, but emphasized that in order to do so it would be a good idea to work on calculation.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 4,070 -
    Talking of Tal...

    If you throw some of his sacrifices at an engine it will huffily spit back an evaluation of -1.80 indicating the move is unsound. However, Tal won the game. If I'm following Berkey correctly, we can think of the engine as giving the GTO play and Tal deviating in part because he knows the move creates such psychological pressure that it gives great practical chances for a win. In other words, good poker players make exploitative and thus exploitable plays all the time.

    But to get to that point, you still need solid theoretical foundations.

    Moderation In Moderation
  • ImperatorImperator Red Chipper Posts: 899 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2016
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    Talking of Tal...

    If you throw some of his sacrifices at an engine it will huffily spit back an evaluation of -1.80 indicating the move is unsound. However, Tal won the game. If I'm following Berkey correctly, we can think of the engine as giving the GTO play and Tal deviating in part because he knows the move creates such psychological pressure that it gives great practical chances for a win. In other words, good poker players make exploitative and thus exploitable plays all the time.

    But to get to that point, you still need solid theoretical foundations.

    Well now you are coming close to my view, I think. Tal was really the great psychologist of chess at his height. Beware of the hippopotamus!

    I have more to say on your thoughts later.

    Very curious though that we both coached chess in the inner city and we both started out in physics.
  • zagaresezagarese Red Chipper Posts: 200 ✭✭
    And
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    Talking of Tal...

    If you throw some of his sacrifices at an engine it will huffily spit back an evaluation of -1.80 indicating the move is unsound. However, Tal won the game. If I'm following Berkey correctly, we can think of the engine as giving the GTO play and Tal deviating in part because he knows the move creates such psychological pressure that it gives great practical chances for a win. In other words, good poker players make exploitative and thus exploitable plays all the time.

    But to get to that point, you still need solid theoretical foundations.

    Would I be correct in thinking that Tal played at a time when _no_one_ played GTO or, more accurately, thought to play GTO.

    In other words, isn't GTO not actually relevant to a discussion of play at the time?

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file