Re: chess or poker
When you state that in chess, you can look up the right move, but in poker, the same situation might present an entirely different "move" to be correct, I see that as an argument for poker requiring more skill.
On that note, Fischer himself felt that chess was boring because it was mostly memorization, which is why he created his own form of chess where the pieces are randomized.
There IS missing information in chess, due to our being fallible as people. I noted an example that I believe still stands.
I agree, and I think it's a good point, that in poker, it's easier to recover from your mistakes. Although, I think you could argue against that if you are playing at the very highest level in poker, or at a lower level in chess.
Your argument about certain poker players (most, in fact) seeking out weaker ones, and how earn is the main goal...these truths have nothing to do with whether poker requires more skill than chess, but instead you're speaking to the nature of the rewards of poker vs. chess.
If there were no "gamble" in poker, if the 51% favorite always won when you flipped the cards over, then it would be much like chess in that only the strongest and smartest players would dare play for large sums of money. It's the gambling spirit that allows for people to play and try to win quickly, not based on skill. This doesn't speak to which game involves more skill, just which one has an element of chance in the short run.
|