The Queen's Gambol!

Like many others, I have recently been watching ‘The Queen’s Gambit’ on Netflix, if you are unfamiliar with the show, the story follows the ups and downs of an unlikely chess prodigy. As a result of the popularity of the series, interest in chess has surged, and as a result of that, the poker community at large has been asking “where’s the poker equivalent?”.

Well actually, I think there is a poker equivalent, it’s just that it’s 20 years old and any influence it may have has faded over time. Rounders, follows a not dissimilar path as an unlikely hero battles the established masters for dominance. While the poker community claim they want more of this kind of thing, even Rounders writer, Brian Koppelman, isn’t even sure we will embrace it. Do we really want this? No wonder we don’t get to have nice things!

Following on from this, a few big name players and streamers dipped their toes in the chess waters as recreational fish and haven’t fared as well as they would normally in the online arena. It got me thinking, chess is a solved game, the chess nerds (said with love and respect) pour over past games and chess ‘hand’ histories, and while the Queen’s Gambit is set before computers are widely available, one of premises in the show is that the players who dedicate themselves to computer like learning are the unbeatable ones. Now we have computers that have effectively solved chess, and even without Deep Blue or whatever the latest iteration is, there are widely available computer programs out there that can teach you the correct plays, from the comfort of your own home, you could learn to be a great player before ever competing against another human being, just diving right in as a skilled high level player. If only there was a poker equivalent…

Of course, there is. We’ve got PIO and the other solvers, not to mention the ongoing development of poker playing AI, like Pluribus and Libratus. We grow ever closer to that notion of a “solved” game like chess and it’s easier than ever for players to get access to the information. Even distilled into preflop range charts, you can build up a solid preflop game without ever playing. If you are going to play for actual real life money, surely you would be a fool to play without getting up to speed with even the basics first?

Many years ago ‘Words With Friends’ became a popular pastime amongst my group of friends. Unfortunately, I was not as good at the Scrabble app as my preconceptions of my verbosity had led me to believe. More often than not, I would lose. Not every game, not by large margins but generally only winning maybe 30% of games against my group of friends. This was disappointing to say the least, I vowed to improve. I began thinking in more strategical terms, blocking triple word scores for opponents, plotting potential moves ahead and the likes. That helped close the gap, except against one of my friends, Pauline. Pauline annihilated me game after game, there was no contest. Liberally scoring 50, 60, 70 point words with alarming regularity, but not just that, words that I’ve never encountered, words that when I looked up were still alien, unfathomable words with inspired placement. Perfect words. I had my suspicions but I could hardly decry my friend as a cheat just because she was beating me, I needed evidence.

I proceeded with the only decent and reasonable course of action, I cheated. I found an online Scrabble/Word With Friends solver and planned on using it over 5 games to see how she fared against a computer. In the first game, I used the best solutions offered by the solver but limited answers to what I thought I could have reasonably come up with. I suffered another comfortable defeat. For the second game, it was now no holds barred, I would use the computer generated perfect answer time. I managed to win by just 5 points. Round three and Pauline defeated the computer solver. I had planned on 5 games but I knew everything I needed to know in just 3, either Pauline was doing exactly what I was doing using a solver, or she is some kind of Scrabble savant. Either way, it was pointless to continue playing. I don’t want there to be a poker equivalent.

But once again, there are poker equivalents. The rise of real time assistants have been a discussion point recently, I think we all agree they are cheating, they are bad for the game, there’s no beating the real time solvers, so why would you try? But where’s the line? In chess, the best players are the ones who have effectively memorised the computer’s solutions and applied them while playing on their own. All the best poker players are now doing the same, it hasn’t been perfected as of yet, but we’re getting closer and my understanding is that if you’re playing at the top level, you need to be all over this or you’ll simply be parted with your money. What about preflop charts? Arguably the same thing, we’ve solved it, just memorise and play. But is that what we want? Really? Remembering computer solutions?

Poker has always been a game where the aim is not necessarily to be the best player in the world but the best player at the table, are we seeing the top players diverging further away from the recreational pack in terms of ability or has it always been this way? The contrast seems stark. Playing against computers doesn’t seem like fun. How do you balance aspirations of being a “good” player without becoming just a “bad” robot?

I don't want the poker equivalent of the Queen's Gambit, I want the Queen's GAMBOL!