Conversation with a Chess Player?

I think it's a fair question. If there is comparison, pool requires thinking ahead, several shots, at least correct pool does. 14.1 is probably the best example. But, this does not apply to three cushion carom, in the slightest, where each successive shot is not initially known. The main difference is pool does not allow your opponent to counter, until you miss, or play safe. Chess, on the other hand, is back and forth, minimal physical ability, but total knowledge and strategy.

Snatch the pawn from my hand, grasshopper...

All the best,
WW
 
One is a game, a high leve game that requires a superior IQ to play at the highest levels. and the other is a sport, that requires instinct and natural hand eye coordination to be able to execute your strategy.

Really hard to compare the two. Like comparing tennis and backgammon.
 
Last edited:
I apologize for not reading all the previous replies, but my take on the OP's question is this: There is strategy involved in both pastimes, obviously, but more so, in chess.
However, I believe pool is much more difficult to master because of the necessity for a dead straight stroke.
Again, some of you may have already alluded to that fact, so let me once more offer an apology. :smile:
 
Cuemaster98 said:
I had a nice conversation with a Chess Player the other day and we were talking about how Chess or strategy of a Chess player is similar to pool. He said Chess is much more complicated strategically compared to pool where you really don't have much option either make the ball or play safe. I thought for a bit and kinda of agreed but I said pool is a much harder game because the move where you decide to play safe or shoot the ball is basically infinite and on top of that you have to execute your strategy where as chess you just need to move your piece and don't have to worry about other physical reality of the game such as condition of the table, the weather etc. Essentially, I told him chess is designed for robot and pool is for human. Lol...he didn't take that too well.

What do you guys think?
Click to expand...


I am a chess GM. Have been so for over 20 years.
I actively play in tournaments at least 2 to 3 times a month and have
played some of the top names out there today in both standard and blitz.

I really don't see the point to this absolutely silly comparison.

When pressed I would personally have to say that I find chess to be at
least about 1,000,000,000,000 times harder than pool - but it's all based on the individual.
Also, I've gotten much further in chess than I have in pool so I happen to know it better and
the work required to get there. It's utterly excruciating.
Who knows? I could be completely wrong about everything.
Again, it's just my OPINION vs. yours.

Why does one game have to be easier or harder than the other?
It depends on the person. Right?
This can never become an objective comparison.
Simply can't.
It's always my opinion vs. yours.

A standard game of chess can go on for 5 yo 7 hours.
Concentrating that hard for every minute of that time is not easy.
One minor error, or just an off beat move order, in the opening or middle game and
the opponent can cash in on that little by little with accurate moves and gain an
overwhelming positional control.
Chess is one of those things you will simply not get anywhere without hours
and hours of studying every day, reading opening theories and endgame studies
with positional evaluations and sharpening your tactical skills and all those hours
mount up to a very minor increase in level that you might feel four years later as
long as you stay with it for hours every day.

Do this for about ten years and if you qualify and are willing to do 6 international
tournaments a year and can beat or draw against other Grandmasters you might get your GM title.

I hear this comparison all the time, especially since my fellow pool
players know how much time I spend playing chess.

It's like saying which one is harder football or tennis.
Can you, the op, tell me which one is harder?

I find it's an utterly silly comparison only brought on by people who
are into ranking systems and each other and are trying to quantify
something you can not quantify.
If you have two kids which one do you love more?
 
Last edited:
9baller, that's awesome! I have been hanging on every game of the chess championship, can't wait until Monday to see game 12!

Here's why I think chess *IS* harder- to become GM you have to do as 9baller says above and get the equivalent of like 3-4 PHDs in chess, just as the price of admission. Then you have to go out and win with those techniques against the world's best.

Pool? You literally just Hit A Million Balls. It's NOT the same as studying chess. You can just play music in your basement, shoot balls in the hole, it's not that draining. Trust me, I have HAMB and did it in my basement playing Led Zepplin, Beatles, etc. The hardest part was picking what music mood I was in and whether I wanted to play straight pool or the ghost.

OK, I'm minimizing it a little, but seriously...pool ain't that complicated. It's not easy, but it's pretty simple.
 
Currently working my way through the tournament they just had in St. Louis (shhhh....no one tell me who won!). Naka just got his butt handed to him by Topalov. Nice to see Yasser and Garry joking around and getting along. I thought they hated each other. Garry has a book coming out in the spring!

9Ballr:
I have deep admiration for you. Getting to the GM level seems impossibly hard without dedicating your life to it, and just slightly less impossibly hard if you do. Is that your profession? You must have been living off of tournaments, gambling, lessons and things like that at some point at least, right? I can't imagine getting to that level as a hobby, even a serious one.
 
john coloccia said:
Is that your profession? You must have been living off of tournaments, gambling, lessons and things like that at some point at least, right? I can't imagine getting to that level as a hobby, even a serious one.
Click to expand...


Not any more. Although I still play in a lot of tournaments I'm not doing it so much
any more to make a living as I'm just keeping my chops up.

I was living off tournaments for some time and have always given a lot of lessons.
Still do the lessons/coaching, and a lot of them too, both locally and via Skype.

I am a titled player on both chess.com and on ICC and registered at both places as
a chess coach. An added advantage to being titled is that you get free memberships
on both sites if you can prove it, either IM or GM. It's very easy for me to prove that via
Fide documents.

I get quite a few students from those sites and we do Skype lessons where I share part
of my computer screen with them using Chessbase. The students are from all over the world.

During the lessons I analyze their own rapid (15 min) or standard (USCF reg) games with
them and we play a lot through famous GM games and analyze those too, plus we always do
endgame. They learn closed center, open position, playing on the wings, knight vs. bishops,
two rooks vs queen and a pawn, basic strategy, deep strategy etc.
Then I give them homework which mostly consist of tactical problems and to play 4-5 rapid and
up time control, and analyze couple of positions I give them and give me a summary of it next time
I see them.

You're right, I also can't imagine becoming a GM as a hobbyist.
Let's just say I've never heard of anyone doing that as of yet.....lol
I became a GM when I was in my early 20's. I was an IM when I was 19 but keep in mind I started
playing very early doing scholastic tournaments etc.

You gotta do this stuff when you are young, ideally a teen, and you have NO financial responsibilities....
I had parents that were supportive and didn't mind driving me all over for tournaments and paying for
coaches and buying books, they actually liked doing it.
 
Last edited:
Tin Man said:
9baller, that's awesome! I have been hanging on every game of the chess championship, can't wait until Monday to see game 12!
Click to expand...


Same here. I'm getting the live feed.
I'm a huge fan of Carlsen, actually played him back in 2002 in a standard time control
but I think he was only 12 at the time......lol
He was already amazing back then and played in a very incredibly tactical way.
Sorta like a mix of Kasparov/Tal/Anand like. This guy sees everything.
He played a very tactical line of the Nimzo-Indian against my d4.
Back then his rating was only about 2200+ or so, don't remember the details
but you could see the heart of a champion was already brewing.
I've been watching Karjakin very closely for the last few years.
He is not afraid of anyone and anyone who can defend and turn a game
on a dime like he can is a formidable force.
Very mature player from early age.
Although you could argue that Caruana would be there if it hadn't been
for his rook blunder in the candidates.
If Karjakin won't get the title now I think it's just a matter of time....just my opinion.
That being said I sure hope Carlsen will keep it.
He has by now realized the sweet life of a champion can come to a
crushing end if he doesn't stay focused and sharp.
These World Champions have to do a lot of exhibitions, fundraisers and other stuff
that takes them away from the game and eats up time.
The sharks will come swimming the moment they see a weakness.
 
Do you think we'll see another Ruy Lopez or do you think Magnus will try to surprise Sergey?
Does Magnus play carefully in game 12 and look for a safe way to press, or do you see him really making a sharp game?
One question I really wonder, how does his chances change if it goes to a rapid playoff?

I'm assuming he'll stick with e4, will play fairly safe and cinching a draw while trying to give Sergey a chance to make mistakes, but that he's not afraid of the playoffs. I get the feeling that Sergey as the challenger is feeling the pressure a bit more, and that if it goes to a shorter time control that Magnus will feel more comfortable picking optimal lines in sharp positions and trusting his gut a bit more. Sergey does defend like a machine, and given enough time it seems impossible to beat him (some of those earlier draws were tremendous even if he was losing at times). But in a short game he'll be hard pressed to meet Magnus's assaults.

Just my feel. I'm truly an amateur at this and would love your thoughts. I watch their press conferences but those are pretty superficial.
 
Tin Man said:
Do you think we'll see another Ruy Lopez or do you think Magnus will try to surprise Sergey?
Does Magnus play carefully in game 12 and look for a safe way to press, or do you see him really making a sharp game?
One question I really wonder, how does his chances change if it goes to a rapid playoff?

I'm assuming he'll stick with e4, will play fairly safe and cinching a draw while trying to give Sergey a chance to make mistakes, but that he's not afraid of the playoffs. I get the feeling that Sergey as the challenger is feeling the pressure a bit more, and that if it goes to a shorter time control that Magnus will feel more comfortable picking optimal lines in sharp positions and trusting his gut a bit more. Sergey does defend like a machine, and given enough time it seems impossible to beat him (some of those earlier draws were tremendous even if he was losing at times). But in a short game he'll be hard pressed to meet Magnus's assaults.

Just my feel. I'm truly an amateur at this and would love your thoughts. I watch their press conferences but those are pretty superficial.
Click to expand...


I can only answer from a personal point of view as to what opening I would play.
If it was me I'd definitely stay with any of the e4 openings considering Karjakin
is considered one of the strongest d4 and Queens Gambit players out there.
As to Carlsen, the beauty of him as a player is that you just don't know.
He might even go Nf3 although I doubt it.

So yes, I definitely think we're in for another Ruy and probably Berlin at that.

As to what Magnus's plan is, I think he wants to see this go to rapid.
He is a much stronger rapid and blitz player than Karjakin who is pretty
slow methodical and not quite tactical enough to come out swinging at
Magnus in rapid or blitz.

I think Magnus should stick with what Magnus does best, as you said,
"play carefully in game 12 and look for a safe way to press".
I think it's a perfect way to describe it.
Play very solid, create some opportunities without going crazy and then
do it anaconda style and move in for the kill and keep chocking.

Just look at the game he won. He just kept playing safe until Karjakin blundered with the Rhh7
instead of the Nh7 which would have kept him in the game because of the e5 pawn.
Because of that he couldn't possibly defend both b7 and e6.

In rapid Magnus is deadly. Just plain deadly. He will play fast and super strong.
I love analyzing his blitz and rapid games, they are so beautiful.

Yes! Karjakin defends like a machine. That's actually exactly what he does.
The one thing I can say about computers is that they defend perfectly.
And he is like that.
They don't do positional chess very well and slow quiet moves is something computers
don't like but they defend perfectly.
One can really learn from computers, Stockfish, Komodo, Houdini, by setting up a strong
attack and see how it defends.
 
Last edited:
Obviously pool is the tougher game. The best chess players can play a whole game of chess blind folded. You can't do this in pool. By the way try playing chess blind folded and see how many moves you can make it.

I play both games and I consider chess to be much more difficult to play at the highest levels or at any level.
 
ChicagoRJ said:
One is a game, a high leve game that requires a superior IQ to play at the highest levels. and the other is a sport, that requires instinct and natural hand eye coordination to be able to execute your strategy.
Click to expand...

I play a little of both.........agree that if you don't have a higher than average IQ, you will never reach the top levels of chess (pool doesn't require that)

being a member of Mensa has more in common with chess, than pool does.


I love both games, for different reasons..........
 
michael4 said:
I play a little of both.........agree that if you don't have a higher than average IQ, you will never reach the top levels of chess (pool doesn't require that)

being a member of Mensa has more in common with chess, than pool does.


I love both games, for different reasons..........
Click to expand...

Do you really have to be a genius to master chess though... or just be willing to put in the time and have a good memory along with ability to visualize the board?
 
Arete said:
Do you really have to be a genius to master chess though... or just be willing to put in the time and have a good memory along with ability to visualize the board?
Click to expand...

Higher than average IQ does not mean genius...but it helps. I tried for many years to get better in chess, but found my intelligence was lacking. I have learned from chess, and bring it into my shot selection in pool, but I find there is more to chess than pool. If you want a piece or trivia, there have been more books written about chess than any other sport combined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top