[blueodum]

I'll chime in with praise for Brandon as one of the best poker writers around.

Someone mentioned that top bridge players can stay world-class into their 50s. I think there is a demographic issue at work. I'd guess that 50 years ago, when bridge was very popular, the age range of the top players was much lower. Nowadays, comparatively few young people learn bridge in a serious way, so there is a lack of young people to push out the old guard.

The same was true of poker 20-25 years ago. If you look at some of the footage from the WSOP back then, you don't see many twenty-somethings.

Now, with the Hold'em boom, and online poker providing the ideal training ground for new talent, there is a flood of young people entering the game, drowning out the old guard by sheer numbers (if not innate ability).

Also, currently, the average age of top chess players is solidly in the 25-35 age range, as it has been for about 4 decades. There are still a fair number of young phenoms coming into the game - in fact by age 21 they are veterans, having played serious chess for over a decade in almost all cases.

IMO, Kasparov would have maintained a top 5 ranking for another couple of decades had he wished too, but there was no doubt that his abilities were in slight decline.

The amount of work required to stay at the top in chess is much greater than the effort required to become a top poker player. With all the analytical tools available to chess players now, the best prepared player usually wins out. Though Kasparov has great innate chess skills, most observers thought that he maintained his grip on the top spot because he out-prepared his opponents.

If you could measure the "chess IQ" of the top 15 players in the world, I doubt there would be significant differences. I think the differences arise in work-ethic, fitness level and the ability to deal with pressure.

I think the same is and will be true of top poker players.