[samoleus]

ggbman, thanks for the compliments man - I really appreciate it.

Some (but not nearly all) basic arguments for chess would be:

- no one can be a world class chess player without much much more study and experience than it takes to be a world class poker player

- the game is more analytical and requires more complex thought

- calculation is both more important and more difficult than in poker

- the margin between great players and good players is much more than in poker

Some (but again, not all) basics for poker:

- while the imagination/creativity factor is similar to that in chess, the psychological factor is greater

- in chess, it is nearly always best to play one exact move in a given situation in a game while poker is deeper than that; a plethora of factors enter every situation which can make the "right" play different in exactly the same situation on a different day or session.

- much more emotional control and general temerity is required in poker

- computers can beat all but the best humans in chess; computers on the other hand will probably never be able to beat the best humans in poker. this is probably indicative of the greater intangibles in poker than in chess.

- in poker, one has to be able to adjust much more for specific opponents, moods, etc.

There are more arguments on both sides, but I wanted to creat some initial points for discussion ...