[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
This scenario has a real world corollary in Chess. In their first battle together for the world championship Karpov – Kasparov squared off in 1984, Karpov jumped out to huge lead of 4-0. What followed was 17 consecutive draws and Karpov pushed the score to 5-0, one more win and match is over. The match turned bizarre after the 5th win, strange early draws, and psychological pressure and finally after a total of 48 games the match was stopped with the score 5-3 and neither player declared the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting example, but I am not sure if conclusions from Chess can be applied to Poker.

Chess is a game of complete information. During a game you always know if your opponent is trying to create an irrational position with lots of variance or trying to play for technical superiority in simple positions with less variance. That makes all the difference in the world because you can always chose the optimal defence.

In Poker you don't see your opponent's hole cards, so you don't know if he had the nuts or was just making a move on you. He can not only cheat you in every single hand, he can even trick into chosing an inferior strategy.

Another problem with chess is the drawish character of the game. Just like Capa said, it's very likely, that Chess is simply a draw. It's just very tough to force a win in Chess against an opponent of equal strength.

In Poker it's just a matter of time until both players get a strong hand at the same time and the clash is inevitable. If both opponents have equal strength then variance will make one a winner nevertheless.

Poker is closer related to Backgammon than to Chess. Comparisons should only be drawn to games of incomplete information.

Last but not least the specific situation was unique, because Karpov is player who is unable to "gamble it up". He only had one style to chose from.