5 ms·

But while poker is, at heart, a simple game, easy enough to grok that you can strategize along with Phil Ivey when he plays on TV, a grandmaster-level chess mat

But while poker is, at heart, a simple game, easy enough to grok that you can strategize along with Phil Ivey when he plays on TV, a grandmaster-level chess match is totally bewildering. --- Just as my brain is hopelessly puny next to Magnus Carlsen’s, so is Carlsen’s compared to that of a modern chess-playing machine. I don't like these rhetorical techniques that debase one thing to show how great another thing is. There's a certain dishonesty in them, as if the author were qualified to make these observations.

grifpete 12y ago
Maybe. But he's right.
- blacksmith_tb 12y ago
  For certain values of 'right'. The machine doesn't have a brain, making the metaphor strained at best.
  - gamegoblin 12y ago
    Hardly. First, it's not really a metaphor, more of an analogy; it could be reworded as: My brain is to Carlsen's as Carlsen's is to the best computer's. It's pretty obvious he isn't talking about his brain qua a biological organ. He's referring specifically to chess skills. In that regard, the best computer chess engine in the world absolutely dominates the best humans. Even with a pawn or two removed as handicap, the best humans struggle to get draws. There was a recent match played between the world #5 human (Nakamura) and the world #1 computer (Stockfish). Even when Stockfish played black, used a handicap of removing the b-pawn before beginning, and didn't use any opening books, Nakamura was still beaten. The age of Human vs. Computer competition ended pretty conclusively in the mid 2000s, and the gulf has just widened.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  He is? Shouldn't a machine be even better at overwhelming puny humans on an 'easy' game? The basic rules of poker and chess are pretty simple. The deeper strategy is nonobvious in both of them, too.
sejje 12y ago
Chess is a simple game with simple rules in the same sense that poker is. If a normal person could get inside Phil Ivey's brain, the strategy would not seem very easy to grok.
ubernostrum 12y ago
There is a quantifiable difference between poker and chess, at the highest levels. Both do require up-front study and memorization. But in chess, the amount of up-front study and memorization is orders of magnitude higher; the sheer number of openings, variations on openings, variations on variations, etc., followed by tactical/positional situations to study in midgame play... just dwarfs poker. And both do require sustained concentration and high mental performance. But in poker there is a certain amount of forgiveness -- you can make a mistake and you just lose that hand and some chips, and still salvage the game with good play from that point. You can even make multiple such mistakes and still frequently be able to come back. But in high-level chess, even a single tiny slip is absolutely fatal.

grifpete 12y ago

Maybe. But he's right.

blacksmith_tb 12y ago
For certain values of 'right'. The machine doesn't have a brain, making the metaphor strained at best.
- gamegoblin 12y ago
  Hardly. First, it's not really a metaphor, more of an analogy; it could be reworded as: My brain is to Carlsen's as Carlsen's is to the best computer's. It's pretty obvious he isn't talking about his brain qua a biological organ. He's referring specifically to chess skills. In that regard, the best computer chess engine in the world absolutely dominates the best humans. Even with a pawn or two removed as handicap, the best humans struggle to get draws. There was a recent match played between the world #5 human (Nakamura) and the world #1 computer (Stockfish). Even when Stockfish played black, used a handicap of removing the b-pawn before beginning, and didn't use any opening books, Nakamura was still beaten. The age of Human vs. Computer competition ended pretty conclusively in the mid 2000s, and the gulf has just widened.
Dylan16807 12y ago
He is? Shouldn't a machine be even better at overwhelming puny humans on an 'easy' game? The basic rules of poker and chess are pretty simple. The deeper strategy is nonobvious in both of them, too.

sejje 12y ago

Chess is a simple game with simple rules in the same sense that poker is. If a normal person could get inside Phil Ivey's brain, the strategy would not seem very easy to grok.

ubernostrum 12y ago

There is a quantifiable difference between poker and chess, at the highest levels. Both do require up-front study and memorization. But in chess, the amount of up-front study and memorization is orders of magnitude higher; the sheer number of openings, variations on openings, variations on variations, etc., followed by tactical/positional situations to study in midgame play... just dwarfs poker. And both do require sustained concentration and high mental performance. But in poker there is a certain amount of forgiveness -- you can make a mistake and you just lose that hand and some chips, and still salvage the game with good play from that point. You can even make multiple such mistakes and still frequently be able to come back. But in high-level chess, even a single tiny slip is absolutely fatal.