Chess vs. Poker trends in gaming theory

[ArmenH]

Does anyone here use chess gaming theory in poker? This especially goes for Tournament play, where you can not reload. In a nutshell, your objective in chess is to capture your opponents queen. In tournament poker your objective is to capture your opponents last chip. There are many similarities between both games that has no been discussed much. I am opening this thread for discussion.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone here use chess gaming theory in poker? This especially goes for Tournament play, where you can not reload. In a nutshell, your objective in chess is to capture your opponents queen. In tournament poker your objective is to capture your opponents last chip. There are many similarities between both games that has no been discussed much. I am opening this thread for discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am closing this thread based on mind-numbing inaccuracy.

Chess is only about capturing your opponent's queen if you are both very, very bad.

Describing tournament poker as having an objective of capturing your opponent's last chip is leaving out almost all of the story.

[Nash_Clown]

[ QUOTE ]
In a nutshell, your objective in chess is to capture your opponents queen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure that you intended to say king... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

In chess you find candidate moves and calculate combinations. In poker you consider if/how to bet and calculate how to play your hand from preflop to river.

In chess former world champion GM Emanuel Lasker would sometimes play inferior moves because he was confident that his particular opponent would not play the critical line and he could gain a psychological advantage. In poker you sometimes make non-optimal plays to exploit opponents and/or gain a psychological advantage.

...

[ArmenH]

Close it. Sorry for thinking outside of the box for once. And yes, I meant King.

[emerson]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone here use chess gaming theory in poker? This especially goes for Tournament play, where you can not reload. In a nutshell, your objective in chess is to capture your opponents queen. In tournament poker your objective is to capture your opponents last chip. There are many similarities between both games that has no been discussed much. I am opening this thread for discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think that there is not much game theory in chess. Nothing is hidden from your opponent in chess. About the only thing I can personally think of is a competitor using a variety of different opening in a long match. But I'm not sure this qualifies.

Of course, when world class grandmasters play each other they probably play closer to a min-max strategy than an exploitative strategy, that they would use against a weaker player.

[Nash_Clown]

I don't think there is anything wrong with this thread, and ArmenH is correct to say the object of chess is to capture the opp. king. Skip made a rash judgement, and while it's correct that there is more to winning such as position play, strategy, and tactics, those are the devices used to attain victory... mating the king.

On a broader note, the idea that there can be no game theory or probability aspects in chess because there is no hidden information seems flawed to me.

Unless two computers that have completely solved the game through to mate (or a draw) are playing one another, then chance DOES play some part. For anytime you make a move in chess for tactical or positional reasons & you do not see fully on through to the end of the game, you are making a subjective evaluation of that move/combo/position, and your opp. will be doing the same.

Say Garry Kasparov(or anyone else) is playing in a tournament against an opponent in what he knows to be theoretically drawn position. However, say there is some unorthodox sacrifice that would lose to perfect play, but would require great foresight and calculation to refute by the opp. Also, let's assume that if the opp. is unable to recognize and calculate this full varation and makes one wrong move, his position will be lost.

Shouldn't probability/game theory be used here? If a draw is obtained Kasparov's EV is 0.5 points.

Let say the probability that the opp. is unable to find the correct line during the game .8 of the time. Therefore Kasparov's EV for the game would be:

.8*1 -.2*0 = .8

The great chess player Mikhail Tal often used a style very similar to this. He would make very complicated sacrifices that (after hours of post game analysis) were often found to be "incorrect." However, during the high stress and fixed time constraints of live games, he was able to expoit his opponents and win in such positions.

Saying there is no hidden information is correct in the sense that all moves and variations COULD be eventually calculated. But when moves are made without that being the case, there is inherent chance involved in the outcome of the game.

[emerson]

Yes, but chess masters tend to be more artist types than gambling types. They are embarrassed if analysis shows their winning line to be a losing play against proper defense. This is different from poker where a winning line that works against this opponent is always the right play.

But isn't your example one of exploitative play? I'm not a game theory expert, but isn't that the opposite of game theory? I thought game theory minimized bad outcomes against good play rather than taking risks to exploit bad play.

[ocdscale]

You can make similar analogies between any two games.

[ QUOTE ]

Does anyone here use battleship gaming theory in poker? This especially goes for Tournament play, where you can not reload. In a nutshell, your objective in battleship is to capture your opponents last ship. In tournament poker your objective is to capture your opponents last chip. There are many similarities between both games that has no been discussed much. I am opening this thread for discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both games deal with imperfect information where you make moves to gage your opponents position.

Chess and poker are both competitive games, there are bound to be superficial similarities, but that's where they end.