3 ms·

The interesting thing is that it is actually the opposite. It's been conjectured that with optimal play Chess ends in a draw (and if it's instead a win for whi

by im3w1l 4y ago

The interesting thing is that it is actually the opposite. It's been conjectured that with optimal play Chess ends in a draw (and if it's instead a win for white/black basically the same argument applies). So for two sufficiently smart players the best you can do is avoid blundering your draw away. Winning against a weaker opponent is impossible without psychology and subterfuge. You have to put your opponent in tricky spots where you know he is weak. Poker on the other hand, by being random, means that you can mindlessly play the mathematically optimal strategy. Eventually your opponent will be put in a tough spot by pure randomness.

robot_no_419 4y ago
It's not the opposite either. Chess is a game of skill, poker is also a game of skill. The difference is that chess is deterministic and poker is not. Chess skill means being able to forcefully convert a winning or drawing position. Poker skill means optimizing your chances of winning. Not only is it possible to beat weaker opponents in chess by playing the best moves (contrary to your assertion), it happens all the time over the board. Weaker players are more likely to play moves that transforms the chess game from a win/draw to a draw/loss for them. There isn't a single human or engine alive that can consistently secure a draw against every opponent. And it's possible for a poker player to mindlessly play the mathematically optimal move and still lose. Poker IS a game a chance, so they could just get unlucky.
- im3w1l 4y ago
  If we define optimal play as never turning a win into a draw or a draw into a loss, then I think it's possible to play a passive-but-optimal style, with few traps for weak players to fall into. Also if a position is "lost" but it's very very non-trivial to see why, a stupid-but-optimal strategy is to resign or move pieces randomly. You need psychology to win from a lost position.

by im3w1l 4y ago

robot_no_419 4y ago

It's not the opposite either. Chess is a game of skill, poker is also a game of skill. The difference is that chess is deterministic and poker is not. Chess skill means being able to forcefully convert a winning or drawing position. Poker skill means optimizing your chances of winning. Not only is it possible to beat weaker opponents in chess by playing the best moves (contrary to your assertion), it happens all the time over the board. Weaker players are more likely to play moves that transforms the chess game from a win/draw to a draw/loss for them. There isn't a single human or engine alive that can consistently secure a draw against every opponent. And it's possible for a poker player to mindlessly play the mathematically optimal move and still lose. Poker IS a game a chance, so they could just get unlucky.

im3w1l 4y ago
If we define optimal play as never turning a win into a draw or a draw into a loss, then I think it's possible to play a passive-but-optimal style, with few traps for weak players to fall into. Also if a position is "lost" but it's very very non-trivial to see why, a stupid-but-optimal strategy is to resign or move pieces randomly. You need psychology to win from a lost position.