It's Not Chess the President is Playing. It's Poker.

[MineralMan]

In chess, the entire board is visible to players and spectators alike. Anyone can see the position of every piece on the board. Everyone knows exactly how each piece can be moved.

In poker, depending on which game you're playing, some cards are visible, while others are hidden, both from the players around the table and from the spectators. Each player knows what cards he or she holds as hole cards. Each player knows the cards that are visible, if cards are visible in the particular game being played. Additional cards remain unseen until they are drawn during play. At each point, players can bet on the game, based on the cards they know about, their hole cards, and the odds of poker. During those betting periods, a player may attempt to deceive other players in many ways, while trying to figure out what the other players are thinking by their betting and their other actions.

The difference between poker and chess is the number of players, and the visibility of the playing field. The negotiations under way right now are much more like poker than like chess. Each player knows some things, but not everything. There are pauses in the game where betting takes place and players try to bluff or conceal their strategy, or make bets based on information only they know.

In poker, there is a point at which you have to continue playing or fold your hand. Similarly, in political negotiations, you may think you are holding an excellent hand, only to see your position dwindle as new cards are drawn. At some point, you must decide what do to. You can call or you can fold or you can raise the bet. Eventually, if there is more than one player in the game, all the cards in play will be shown and the winner will be clear. In the very best case, however, the winner wins when everyone else has folded. In that case, the winner does not have to show his or her cards. The mystery remains.

Chess is an open game of logic and strategy. Poker is a game of odds, deceit, and strategy. The two games are not alike. Politics is poker, not chess.

[rug]

1. It's Pin The Tail On The Donkey.

[MineralMan]

2. No, it is not. In Pin the Tail on The Donkey

the single player is blindfolded. In politics, everyone but the players is blindfolded. Politics is poker. It is not pin the tail on the donkey. It is not chess.

[givemebackmycountry]

3. Good post, and after reading it I'm wondering what will happen when...

One of these players pushes all their chips forward on the table and declare...
"All In"

[MineralMan]

4. I'm not really sure what particular game is being played.

It may not be Texas Hold 'Em. I'm thinking it looks more like simple draw poker. That's my favorite game, by far. In that game I know only my own cards and how many cards the other players draw to their hands. But, this negotiation looks to me to be one form or another of stud poker, with some cards unique to the individual players and some in common. I do not believe, however that there will be an "All in" call. It just doesn't look like that kind of game to me.

Clearly, though, Boehner folded a hand today after he chickened out on a bluff. That's very interesting. In the meantime, President Obama has his hat pulled down over his eyes and a pair of sunglasses on. Hard to read. Boehner has a tell. I'm not sure if Obama does. He may have a fake tell, though. I think he's a better poker player than Boehner, who may break down in tears before this game ends.

[murielm99]

34. It is not a fucking game.

People's lives are riding on this. The world's economies are riding on this.

[MineralMan]

39. Oh, dear...no place for a little relief from the tension?

Of course it's not a game. It is similar to a game, however, in how the process works. Not all games are fun. Some are downright scary.

[murielm99]

47. Actually, I just came back from the gym.

That is the way I usually work it out.

I understand that some people use these metaphors to work it out for themselves and distance themselves from the tension.

[IndianaJoe]

5. Russian Roulette? n/t

[MineralMan]

6. Nope. There is no winner in that game. Only a loser.

It's poker.

[DevonRex]

7. Game theory, blind man's bluff and poker...

http://poppylbs.blogspot.com/2010/12/blind-mans-bluff.html

[MineralMan]

10. Nice. I loved that movie.

Is politics a zero-sum game? I don't think so. Somewhere this game will shift. Right now, I believe Obama has control of the game. I could be wrong, but I think so. We'll soon know. The invisible player in this game is the specter of voters becoming disgusted with the Republicans. That's the player who is really to be feared. to stretch the analogy, that player is holding Kings over Jacks. But only the Jacks are exposed. I like their hand.

[immoderate]

8. I think there are common cards, but they fit hands differently.

I'm also thinking Obama folded hands he could have won. I don't see it as strategic.

--imm

[fivepennies]

9. When you come right down to it,

he's playing on our last nerves.

[MineralMan]

12. Poker's a tough game for nervous people.

We're sort of like one player's family sitting in the audience at the game. It's pretty tense right now, and the limits are going up. Could be a long night.

[fivepennies]

15. Poker's only tense if

there's a pile of your money on the table and you're holding crap cards.

[MadHound]

11. Oh geez,

First of all, if you think that chess doesn't involve deceit, then you've never played high level chess.

Second of all, it doesn't matter what "game" the president is playing, whatever it is, he is doing poorly.

[MineralMan]

14. I disagree on both counts.

Of course chess involves deceit, but the pieces are still visible at all times. The player can see them and should be planning for deceitful moves.

In poker, much remains unknown to the players, with only the odds and their instincts guiding their play.

[MadHound]

20. Again, then, you have never played competition level chess

Deceit, at that level, is integral to the game. The faking of one line of attack while developing another, and keeping it all disguised by a third. Like I said, this is what goes on at high level play, and I should know, I played at that high level when I was a youngster. I was playing in, and winning, national tournaments when I was fifteen and sixteen, and had a rating over 2,200.

Just because the pieces are visible at all times doesn't mean that you can't practice deceit.

Yes, poker you don't know exactly what cards people are playing with, but really, with a single, or even double deck, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out if you have any kind of memory and statistical ability:shrug:

[MineralMan]

23. You are correct. I have not played chess at that level.

Good for you for having done so. I'm impressed. Truly. I have been a follower of master level chess since I was a teenager, although not a player. So, I do understand the role of deceit. You are aware that this thread is sort of playful, right? It's a bit of Sunday afternoon recreation. We needn't duke things out in it.

[MadHound]

45. Not duking it out with you,

Just correcting a mistaken impression about chess.

If you were following chess for a long while, you'll probably run across some very youthful pictures of me from the back issues of Chess Life out of the seventies, I was a complete chess nerd. Within the space of a year and a half I gave it all up. Discovered other games to play(D&D), other interests(girls, debate, being a DJ), and my life went on.

I still play chess on occasion, and haven't lost that much, but in reality it bores me. And gawd, living the life of a chess nerd, hanging with other chess nerds at tournaments, clinics, etc., bleahhh. One of those groups of people isolated in their own little unreal bubble.

Have a great afternoon:hi:

[woo me with science]

79. Wow, MadHound, that's fantastic!

I'm so impressed!

[pitohui]

28. chess is a game of perfect information, poker is a game of imperfect information

this is not actually a matter of debate, madhound

mineral man may have phrased it badly, but it is a known fact, and is the reason why chess was solved and winnable by a computer years ago, and poker still isn't "solved," even though some pretty low level people play poker and some supposed geniuses play chess

chess is a game of perfect information, you canNOT deceive, both players can see every piece on the board at all times

poker is, by design, a game of imperfect information, there are hidden cards (unless you've got some kind of cheating scam going to see your opponent's cards)

now you may have some other meaning of the word "deceive" going unknown to us regular joes on the street who don't play "high level chess" but i've never seen a chess game where both players couldn't see every piece on the board at all times

whereas EVERY poker game involves having to act on partial information

chess is of little value to the study of game theory, nuclear war, political decision making, for that purpose, neumann and others modeled POKER -- you can look up this information in any book on game theory

[MadHound]

50. Wow, then I guess all my experience at high level competitive chess,

As well as the experience of all those masters and grand masters is just a mirage, an illusion, all because you say so.

Whatever:eyes:

Get back to me when you start playing chess with a ranking of 2,200, 2,300, then perhaps you'll understand what I'm talking about. Until then, you have no fucking clue.

Let me make this real simple for you, yes, you can see what is going on with the pieces on the board. Yet you have no clue as to what is going on in your opponents mind. He may be coming out with a very meek and mild Reti Opening, yet is slowly developing a devastating attack that, despite seeing all the pieces on the board, you have no clue is coming. Just because you can see all the pieces on the board doesn't mean that you know everything that is going on. Strategies can be disguised, one within another, within still a third. That is where deception comes in, being able to hide your attack in plain sight. Much more tricky that holding the cards close to your chest and bluffing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. Nevertheless, it IS still all in plain sight, and the better player

will be able to discern and counter the hidden strategy.

Any strategy that you devise CAN be deciphered and dealt with, if the opponant is good enough. All it takes is asking "Why would he make that move?" and then, "Why ELSE would he make that move" - and again and again until you've covered all possibilities. Not just thinking ten moves ahead, but ten moves ahead in 12 different permutations.

Poker and chess require two very different skill sets. And maybe Obama IS a good chess player. Problem is, he is in a POKER game.

[wizstars]

74. ...or maybe he's using a knife in a gun fight......

[bananas]

84. That isn't correct - chess was NOT "solved and winnable by a computer years ago".

You wrote, "chess was solved and winnable by a computer years ago".
That isn't correct, chess has not been solved, and computers still don't win every game.
Computer chess has been so thoroughly analyzed that there's no interesting theoretical research for computer scientists to investigate.
A specific example - in a 2006 match, the computer could only draw 4 games - if chess was "solved and winnable", it would have won those games (or at least the games it played white and was able to choose the first move).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_chess

Solving chess
Main article: Solving chess

The prospects of completely solving chess are generally considered to be rather remote. It is widely conjectured that there is no computationally inexpensive method to solve chess even in the very weak sense of determining with certainty the value of the initial position, and hence the idea of solving chess in the stronger sense of obtaining a practically usable description of a strategy for perfect play for either side seems unrealistic today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Kramnik

Deep Fritz match

Kramnik played a six-game match against the computer program Deep Fritz in Bonn, Germany from 25 November to 5 December 2006, losing 2-4 to the machine, with 2 losses and 4 draws. He received 500,000 Euros for playing and would have received another 500,000 Euros had he won the match. Deep Fritz version 10 ran on a computer containing two Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs. Kramnik received a copy of the program in mid-October for testing, but the final version included an updated opening book.<20> Except for limited updates to the opening book, the program was not allowed to be changed during the course of the match. The endgame tablebases used by the program were restricted to five pieces<21> even though a complete six-piece tablebase is widely available.

On 25 November the first game ended in a draw at the 47th move.<22> A number of commentators believe Kramnik missed a win.<23> Two days later, the second game resulted in a victory for Deep Fritz, when Kramnik made what might be called the "blunder of the century" according to Susan Polgar, when he failed to defend against a threatened mate-in-one.<24> (see also Deep Fritz vs. Vladimir Kramnik blunder). The third, fourth and fifth games in the match ended in draws. In the last game Fritz with the white pieces impressively defeated the World Champion,<25> winning the match.

There is now speculation that interest in human vs. computer chess competition will plummet as a result of the Bonn match and other recent matches involving Kasparov, Kramnik, Adams, and various chess programs. According to McGill University computer science professor Monty Newborn, for example, "the science is done".<26>

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Finding the correct game analog seems silly.

Is it like a camel? no, very like a whale. That's Hamlet. I also recommend David Frost's old routine about how the cricket bag is analogous of the Gospel of Christ. It's funnier than I make it sound. But it is like a Cricket Bag, and it is NOT like a checkers set, understand?

[MineralMan]

16. Of course it's silly. I was just thinking about the multi-dimensional

chess analogy people have been bandying about. So, I posted this. Do you mind? You're welcome to participate.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Do I sound like I mind?

I recommended a bit of comedy you would find funny, I'm sure. Is that offensive to you? I don't take silly stuff seriously, and this is silly stuff. It is much like the young soldier who brought his cricket bag to church, or like his reasons for bringing it, in the Frost routine.
The Hamlet quote is about trying to name the shapes of clouds, with larger meanings to boot. You know, you see a camel, I see a whale, but what it is is a cloud.

[MineralMan]

19. I'm familiar with the Hamlet reference.

It's all silly. The actual situation isn't silly, but it's not a game, either. It's Sunday, and I'm feeling a bit puckish just now, at the end of the day.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Here's a link to the text of the Cricket bag bit

Sadly I can not find Frost on audio for you, the way he says it is half the battle. The whole thing is a take off on a take off, a deck of cards, a chess set, the cricket bag have all been used to tell this same basic joke. Like the aristocrats, it is tailored over and over to suit the purpose. As are the game analogies in politics. And thus I say to you that politics is not like chess, nor like poker, it is most like unto a joke or Vaudeville routine. Or not. Maybe it is like a Cricket Bag after all.

http://monologues.co.uk/1960-2000/Cricket_Bag.htm

[MineralMan]

30. Slowly I turned...step by step, inch by inch...

There are lots of ways to look at all of this, really. Somewhere, there will be a rubber chicken, though. There's always a rubber chicken.

[pitohui]

31. it didn't seem silly to john neumann

and i'm going to suggest that he knew a bit more about game theory and the mathematics of decision making than you do

[Brother Buzz]

17. I wonder if some elements of Sun Tzu are in play

[MineralMan]

21. Oh, no doubt at all about that.

Some of the people around the table are very smart. Some...not so much. So, sure. There are those who have read Sun Tzu in the game. I'm not sure which ones, though. I imagine that President Obama is one who has.

[kenny blankenship]

64. I wonder if some elements of Three Card Monte are in play

But Sun Tzu sounds so much more erudite.

[sabrina 1]

22. Actually chess has historically been more of a political game than

Poker. The fact that the pieces are visible on the board means very little. In the hands of a master the pieces are powerful tools, in the hands of a mediocre player, not so powerful.


What matters is the skill of the players what is in their minds as they contemplate each move. It involves strategy, intense concentration, deceit and like any other game, reading the opponent's likely moves in advance of making one's own move and the ultimate goal of victory. It involves disabling an opponent's most threatening players/pieces, weakening the opponent's power and eventually backing the opponent into a corner from which there is no way out.

Pawns represent the people. They have little power and are dispensable. There may be only two people moving the pieces around the board, but the pieces represent many players in what is most definitely a political game.

It was not called the 'game of kings' for nothing.

[MineralMan]

26. You know, as I think about who is sitting around that table,

I'm amused at your characterization. With a very few exceptions, there are no equivalents to master chess players there. This is a simpler game, played by simpler people, for the most part. I mean, really, look at the list of players.

[sabrina 1]

36. Everything is relevant. If all the players are all mediocre as you appear

to be saying, the best of the mediocre will win and will most likely be viewed as a master, of the mediocre. And I agree, that is what we have running things, which is why the game has been played so badly so far. I guess we thought we hired a master, but looking around as you suggest, there are no masters playing this deadly game with the lives of the most vulnerable Americans.

Maybe one will come along sometime in the future ...

[MineralMan]

42. I did not say they were all mediocre. Truly I didn't. Please

reread my post. I do not believe for a minute that they are all mediocre. Some, however, are barely mediocre.

[sabrina 1]

46. Well, we disagree. I believe they are all mediocre

I've watched this game being played for several years now, and have seen nothing to convince there are any master players in it. Just two sides playing for the same bosses, and we are not the bosses.

[MineralMan]

66. Of course you believe whatever you can believe.

You're not the only one who has watched for years. I've been watching and participating since 1965. You don't have a monopoly on observation of the political scene.

Yes, we disagree. That's quite clear. So? We will probably continue to do so.

[pitohui]

41. not in american politics, my friend

chess has been pretty much irrelevant in american politics, whereas poker has been a key inspiration to most of the presidents who had a brain (obv. both poker and chess held no meaning for dementia afflicted figureheads like reagan and the bushes) and also a major influence on the mathematics of decision making which guided our nuclear policy

you may not LIKE our nuclear policy but it achieved the objective of not getting us blown the fuck to pieces, which could have very easily happened at any time between the 50s and the 80s

there is a good book, called "cowboys full: the story of poker" by james mcmanus, which traces the history of poker, and the poker games played by many of the most influential american presidents, including FDR, truman, nixon, etc. (not that i like nixon, but it was interesting that he had such a tight "nit" style of play)

if you want to develop gut instincts and a working understanding of game theory, you would play poker, not chess...chess is useless for life, poker recognizes that you are dealing w. all sorts of folks playing on all sorts of levels, not just chess nerds

[MineralMan]

44. +10

I think you're right.

[sabrina 1]

58. If Poker is such a good game, then why is this country

in the mess it is in right now?

Sorry, you are wrong about chess. Not only is it NOT useless for life, it requires great skill and an ability to read the mind of one's opponent to the point of being able to think several moves ahead of him/her, keeping the opponent on the defensive before moving in to finish them off.

Maybe it's time our leaders learned chess as poker hasn't done much for this country, if indeed that is what they've been playing for the past number of years.

Btw, Carter, Clinton and Obama all play or played chess. It is a far more difficult and mentally challenging game than poker. Carter, who stated when he left the WH, that he wanted to become a master player, eventually gave up on that goal.

Eg, a good chess player would never have given up their best pieces, as this president did, in the HC debate right at the start of the game. As a result, piece after piece of any value, Single Payer, a PO were so easily taken the game went to the opponents who basically got most of what they wanted in the end. Unless of course he does not view them as opponents.

[Rex]

25. I don't want games! I want results!

Sorry, just had to say that.

[MineralMan]

27. And you shall have them aplenty. Results will be

forthcoming. They may not be to your taste, however, so keep your goblet of strong wine close at hand.

My prediction is that we will have the debt ceiling increase in time. What will surround it is not really that clear yet. It won't all be ideal, though, I'm certain. Politics is messy. Boehner will stain the table with tears, someone may vomit behind his chair from having to many bourbons, and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth from some others. But you'll have your results.

[JanMichael]

29. I think it is more of a pinata. Swinging a stick at the New Deal.

[MineralMan]

33. Oh, noes. An Illegal Code in your image link!

Try again. I'd like to see the image. Probably some stuff at the end of the link. Truncate it after the jpg or gif.

[JanMichael]

38. Already fixed. nt

[MineralMan]

40. And a most excellent pinata it is, too. n/t

[Palmer Eldritch]

32. Whichever game he's playing, I'm glad he's on our team. He's winning.

[MineralMan]

35. Well, I think he's on the way to winning. There's still a ways to

go, though, and there may be places where it doesn't seem like he won. We're going to have to look at the entire package, I think.

[JanMichael]

37. Or advanced RPS.

With new special rules:

[Quantess]

43. What is the deal with bad analogies in politics?

Politicians themselves are addicted to poorly fitting, inane analogies, especially republicans. The analogies almost never fit.

And now, we see Obama supporters with a need to find an analogy that explains away Obama's republican-lite behavior. I'm sorry, but the capitulating has gone on for so long, it's obvious that there is no flashy card up his sleeve that will win the game for his base. It's time to take Obama and his actions at face value.

[pitohui]

49. poker unlike chess has a direct influence on american politics and on nuclear brinksmanship

while metaphor and analogy may seem silly, as another poster puts it, POKER is more than a metaphor, it is a game that has had a heavy influence on our nuclear policy, on our mathematics of game theory, and so on -- it has a true place in our history and so it's a natural game to think of when you see somebody playing "games"

if you think obama a bad poker player, so be it, but to pretend that politicians and other business people don't try to figure people out and rate them as certain kind of poker players in the game of life is just unrealistic

[JoePhilly]

59. Analogies, like classification systems, never fit perfectly ...

Both describe a thing without reference to the actual thing.

As such, they are all, always, no matter how well constructed, always flawed.

In the case of the Chess analogies used on DU, my sense is that the "bad fit" is not so much that chess is a bad analogy for politics, but that most of those using it, don't really understand chess.

[NorthCarolina]

48. It's Strip Poker, and the cards are stacked so that 'the people' always lose. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

51. I like this analogy. There's another dimension that doesn't really play into it but

doesn't seem to really contradict the metaphor, which of course was only intended to describe certain aspects of what is going on. What's different is that politics is a game of alliances as well; while you're playing at the table with your opponent, the observers are taking sides and trying to manipulate how you play. Of course, you could just ignore them and play a pure strategic game, which I think Obama is good at, but I'm not sure what he can do about the people who don't understand what he's doing, or won't wait until it's done. I see him as maximizing the effects of his play, but as he may be taking advantage of the fact that his opponent doesn't know what's happening, people who would otherwise be on his side get confused as well. I don't know what he or we can do about that.

[Rowdyboy]

52. Much better analogy than chess......

[rufus dog]

53. The only difference is the media

Unlike poker there are not defined rules. So in a game of Texas Hold em, Obama could draw a pair of Jacks and the Repubs could have a two/seven non suited. The press would claim they both have equal chances, three cards dealt, Jack, Queen, King. The press would still claim the Repubs could win by drawing a three, five, nine, thus getting the "Odd-Short Straight".

Conversely if the opposite happened the press would be all over the Dems for playing the two/seven, even if the next three cards dealt were a seven, six, two. Then if the final card was a third seven the arguement would be two royalty cards beat three sevens.

[MurrayDelph]

54. He may be playing Poker, but the Republicans

are playing Fizzbin.

[Jakes Progress]

55. Whatever he's playing. He's not very good at it.

[JoePhilly]

57. There is nothing wrong with the chess analogy, per se.

I think the problem is that most of those using it (to support Obama, or to attack him), don't really understand how real chess is played.

Those on DU who use the chess analogy usually seem to know the names of the pieces, their relative point values, how they move, and maybe that its a game played by "smart people". Past that, they don't seem to know much about actually playing chess.

For instance, you said that "The difference between poker and chess is the number of players ... ".

I'd disagree. The current political environment has TWO parties. And those are the players.

And ... while you are correct that the field and pieces are visible, the PLANS for the 2 players are not. Those are the same as your "hidden cards"

You said ... "In poker, there is a point at which you have to continue playing or fold your hand" ... this is also true in high level chess. Many high level chess games end when one player resigns because the writing is on the wall, the game can not be won. And many times, the casual observe can't tell that the game is over.

And then you said ... "Chess is an open game of logic and strategy. Poker is a game of odds, deceit, and strategy. The two games are not alike. Politics is poker, not chess."

Not true. Chess is includes Strategy, TACTICS, odds, logic, and deceit.

The ODDS exist based on various factors ... but to keep it simple consider this ... Imagine a game in which you have taken one of my pawns, I have taken nothing. You have a 1 point advantage. But so what ... we both still have all of our other pieces, that 1 point advantage is pretty meaningless. But ... let's say that I have that one point advantage. But the only pieces still on the board are ... your king, my king, and MY pawn. You might be able to DRAW this game, but the ODDS favor me by a huge margin. I can use my king to protect that pawn (which most on DU think was something to sacrifice, yet now they KING defends it), and when that pawn reaches the other side, it becomes a queen and the game is over. between those two point, one can create a "material advantage" ... if I take your queen, I'm up 8 points. The point is that such "advantages" increase my odds of winning ... and a "material advantage" is not the only kind. I can have a "time advantage" ... so on. And so, the ODDS matter.

And DECEIT exists in the interplay between Strategy and Tactics. That is, I might play a tactical move which appears to be counter to my long term strategy. And thus, I am trying to trick you. Maybe I am trying to create what looks like an attack on your Queen side. Or maybe I'm pushing a pawn forward deep into your position, in what looks like a sacrifice, but I'm actually playing a gambit (daring you to take it), after which, I will be able to recover not only the pawn, but much more.

The main reason I would suggest that chess is very much like politics is that interplay between Strategy and Tactics. Strategy is LONG term. Its not a plan per se. Chess games take a long time. And your strategy is to gain some number of advantages over time.

A hand of poker, in comparison, is quick and very tactical.

You could now argue that a Poker tournament is not quick ... and I would respond that a chess tournament can be much longer as well. If I win the first game in a tournament match, I can DRAW the rest and still win.

Bottom line ... the issue is not that the chess analogy is a bad one ... its that those who use it generally don't know much about playing real chess.

Personally, I think the chess analogy is very good for politics .... and also as an analogy for understanding, and making, business decisions.

But that's another post.

[sabrina 1]

61. Very good points, which I made above regarding the errors in

the references to chess, but not as clearly as you have. Chess has been played by some of the world's most effective leaders for centuries.

Maybe that is our problem, no one is capable of even playing the game on a board, let alone in Real Politics.

[JoePhilly]

62. Thanks ... I've come close to writing an OP on this ....

Any time there is a thread in which chess comes up, I find that I learn very little, about politics or chess.

And I think that bugs me because I enjoy both.

[sabrina 1]

68. I think you should write an OP on it. It seems to me that

a lot of people have never played chess or they could never make the claims they do. I would very much like to see an OP like that. :-)

[demwing]

67. The real point is not whether Obama is plaing chess, poker, or Monoply

the point is that the "Obama is just playing chess" excuse is a thin attempt to justify the politcal moves the President is making. He must be plaing chess, and playing several moves ahead, because if he isn't, he's either not as bright as we thought, or not as concerned about us as we hoped.

[JoePhilly]

69. The analogy is also used to demean him.

Way back during the primaries, some one used the analogy to claim he was playing chess, and the others were playing checkers. In that version, the view was, that he was thinking not so much about short term tactics, which is what checkers is all about, but about long term strategic goals.

Currently on DU, we have folks who refer to "35 dimensional chess" as a way to demean Obama ... and then some who try to pick some small tactic, and proclaim it as a positive or negative strategic event.

Both are way off.

Personally, I think Obama is looking less at immediate goals, or even goals that take a few years. I think he is looking much farther out.

As an example ... Social Security did not start as what it is today. Nor did Medicare. I think Obama sees his Health care effort in a similar way. It is the foundation on which we can build.

Often in chess, observers see your individual moves as odd because they have little immediate effect. Some of the most powerful moves in chess are called "quiet moves".

As for me, I need no excuses for Obama. I'm happy with what he's done, particularly given the opposition he faces.

And that's true regardless of which analogy one chooses to work from.

[demwing]

80. Good luck. /nt

[Fumesucker]

60. As I see it chess is more purely a game of skill..

Where poker does indeed have a strong skill component it also involves considerably more "luck" than chess, depending on how the cards fall.

If Obama's playing anything it's stochastic N-dimensional Go.

[Bosonic]

63. Game theory assumes rational players

What's really needed is an analysis using http://www.springerlink.com/content/q05425536442gh96/">Drama theory

http://wiki.drama-theory.com/

[demwing]

65. Thanks. I've said it before - Obama is not a good chess player...

he's a lousy poker player. That explains the position we are in...

[JoePhilly]

70. What is your chess ranking?

I ask because most on DU who use the chess analogy, whether for or against Obama, seem to have no idea how real chess is played.

And so, to make the claim he plays badly ... you must have a pretty strong ranking.

What is it?

[demwing]

82. I didn't claim he plays chess badly

I said he's not a good chess player, he's a bad poker player. You have to read the whole comment.

In retrospect, it would have been more clear for me to say that Obama isn't playing a good game of chess, he's playing a bad game of poker.

One can't play chess well, or poorly, if one isn't playing chess at all.

[BlueIris]

71. It's chicken. Crazy, stupid, dangerous game of chicken. And he's going to lose.

Good luck to him, I guess. I just wish the rest of us weren't getting so screwed in the process.

[0rganism]

72. Nicely put, but the Republicans appear to be playing a different game...

... something a lot like smash-mouth football, but with more than a touch of professional wrestling and a bit of demolition derby thrown in to spice it up. They re-write the rules as they go along. What's a poker player to do in those circumstances?

[WinkyDink]

73. Candyland.

[TK421]

76. Chutes and Ladders n/t

[TK421]

75. uh huh..chess and poker are both games, and I'm certain most Americans

don't appreciate their social security and medicare being fucked with considered a GAME

there's your analogy...laid out for you

Who is sick of "the game" now?

poker, my ass....chess, what a fucking joke

[avgjo]

77. It's footsie. Under the table. With Republicans. n/t

[Marr]

78. Feels more like pro-wrestling to me.

Two opponents who aren't really opponents, paid to put on a good show and get the fans cheering for their "side", but the outcome is already decided. More theater than fight.

[tekisui]

86. Exactly!

[Erose999]

88. +1. I'm guessing the outcome has been decided already and all this "debate" is meant to sell it to

the rubes (meaning, of course, US).

[Hawkowl]

89. +1000 .nt

[joshcryer]

81. He's playing Hold'em, there are two 2's on the board and he has pocket 2's.

There's a 4 and a 5 also on the board and the Republicans have 3 and 6, unsuited.

[demwing]

83. What makes you think he's holding the deuces?

It sounds like you're hoping...how audacious of you :)

[tekisui]

85. It is tug of war, with Obama taking steps in the goppers direction.

Or, it is bowling. And we all know what kind of bowler Obama is.

[Catbird]

87. Obviously Calvinball

You don't really think anyone is following any rules, do you?

[KamaAina]

90. Poker is so 2009

:boring: