Tension has always existed between games of skill, such as chess or draughts, and games seemingly based on chance, like backgammon and poker. The Russian grandmaster and chess historian Yuri Averbakh has suggested that different kinds of games mirror changing human attitudes towards life, the universe and everything. So games of chance indicate the idea of the gods being in control, whereas games of pure skill suggest the start of the human assumption of responsibility.
Of course, devotees of ‘chance’ games like backgammon would say skill is involved, in spite of the random element of the dice throw.
An interesting new development is that poker and chess have started to ally themselves. A recent tournament in the Isle of Man, won convincingly by Nigel Short, was sponsored by the online gaming site PokerStars, while the so-called Millionaire Chess Tournament in Las Vegas (won by Wesley So) was modelled on a structure associated with poker events. Notable, above all, was the prize fund of $1 million, with a first prize of $100,000. This represents the largest single prize fund ever offered for a chess tournament. The shape of things to come?
Short-Greenfeld: PokerStars Masters, Isle of Man 2014 (see diagram 1)
White’s only chance to win this endgame is to win both Black’s rook and knight in exchange for his two pawns. This seems like a tall order. 69 Be4 Re1 70 Bb7 Rg1 71 d5 Rg4+ 72 Ka5 Rd4 72 … Rc4 73 Na4 Rc1 is another defensive set up. 73 d6 Ne8 74 Nb5 Rd2? Black misses his chance. 74 … Nxd6! liquidates down to a draw immediately, e.g. 75 cxd6 Rxd6! 76 Nxd6 Kc7 and White cannot keep both minor pieces or 75 Nxd6 Rxd6! 76 cxd6 Kd7 eliminating the last pawn.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in