[Megenoita]

I think you're wrong.

Chess is different than poker--so? Which one requires more skill?

Poker has a lot of facets to work with that aren't available in chess--and vice versa. Like posted above, there are many more options and thousands of more combinations possible in a period of a chess game than there are in poker.

I don't think you establish why it's key that chess is a game of complete information, and poker isn't. And to a certain extent, chess is not a game of complete information. Suppose I'm playing one of the million lines of Ruy Lopez, and I want to play a certain novelty...however, if my opponent sees the counter x, I believe he'll outplay me and I'll lose. But, the question I have is, will he see it? It involves a complicated and seemingly bashful sacrifice, and I didn't see it for years. If I go for this novelty and he sees the right sacrifice, I will surely lose. If he doesn't see it, he is dead. And if I forego the move and play it safe, we will probably draw. I think there is a 66%-75% chance that he'll miss the correct move, so I'm going for the win. This was similar to poker in having incomplete information as to what my villain holds "in his hand".

Further, in chess, we still have two fallible people. Rarely is the game a "lock" when two very good players are battling. That's why a great GM once said, "Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."
Given the many blunders that both players will make in a game, there is room for creativity and misteps to be recouped. Therefore, things are really close really often. Bobby Fischer was awed at because his end game was virtually perfect to the point where it was robotic and flawless, with no chance of error. This would not be viewed with such high esteem if there are always "lock" scenarios in chess.

Computers should be able to beat the best NLHE players in the world pretty soon IMO. People who think they will "never" beat a human are badly mistaken.