It is no surprise that highly skilled chess players quickly excel at poker. In an essay titled "Killer Instinct," grandmaster Genna Sosonko writes: "Losers (in chess) are branded failures. . . . In the best case, they must be pitied." He also quotes Albert Einstein, who famously said: "I always dislike the fierce competitive spirit embodied in chess." Sosonko's statement is both radical and subjective. We might not agree with its extreme point of view, but it reminds us how high is the premium on winning in chess. Chess players are a tough and realistic bunch for whom poker might, at least at first, seem like child's play. Former U.S. women's champion chess player Jennifer Shahade - in an informed account of the poker scene - reports that many of her friends have given up chess for the monetary rewards of poker. But the card game is not likely to seriously attract many from the top echelon of chess devotees, who generally do well enough financially. Yet it might significantly weaken or deplete the middle ranks of tournament players. And in ways that are not yet fully clear, poker competes in overall popularity with the royal game.
At my local bookstore, the number of shelves devoted to chess books has shrunk from 10 or 12 to three in recent years. Poker books take up seven shelves, other card games one or two more.
Hopefully, the poker phenomenon is not drawing children in significant numbers from scholastic chess programs, which are so good for both the players and the popularity of the game. Shelby Lyman is a Basic Chess features columnist.
--------