chess or poker

[VanVeen]

fwiw, there are no computer programs that can consistently beat a competent human chess player at chess960. by randomizing the starting positions you completely negate what gives the computer whatever edge it may have.

i don't know really understand the question so i will just say this: i think the correlation between raw intelligence and 'poker skill' as defined by longterm winrate is far, far smaller than the correlation between raw intelligence and chess skill after X amount of time invested. with that said, the complexity of poker, especially no limit poker with very deep stacks, is almost assuredly greater than that of standard chess.

[Slap My Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
obviously chess, not even remotely close. Ask any titled chessplayer and I'm pretty sure they will give you the same answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dan Harrington was a chess champ, along with backgammon I think too. I forget what he said, if anything, about which is more demanding skillwise, but I would guess he prefers poker as the more interesting challenge

[Dan BRIGHT]

lol, little jim you expressed my thoughts exactly. This is definitely a thinly veiled brag post!

BTW I think what this thread really needs is another means of measuring our accomplishments, so here is my question:

Whats more impressive, being a chess master or having a large penis? Before you get your tape measures out, Id wager its penis size. My penis very long and very huge, however I do not think its worth my time to validate this claim to you guys through a screenshot or a bank statement (showing the records for how much ive won with it).

I really dont think any of you will be able to compare with me in this department. Well, maybe empiremaker2, but I havent heard his thoughts on this yet.

[punter11235]

Durrr,

[ QUOTE ]
b/c in chess there is much more of a 'right' move than in poker

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not exactly because of that. For example in go (baduk) there is always a "right move" exactly like in chess still computers cant (and wont for a long long time) play that game even at decent amateur level.
There are two reasons for that :
1)chess is "smaller" game
b)its easier to find useful heuristic in chess

As to poker... its of course possible that the best computer programs will beat the best poker players. For example writing a program who will beat limit heads up five card draw shouldnt be too far away (and its easy for any game without draws). The problem with NLHE is that the game is really huge and its very difficult to find heuristics for that. In that sense though its similair to previously mentioned go. Both games are just too big (have too many possibilities/positions) for nowadays computers.

[punter11235]

Samo,
I am decent at chess (2300ELO, last tournament performance almost 2500) and I suck at poker. So I would say poker is more difficult from my perspective.

[Slap My Jack]

Chess master or large penis < Being a chess master who pushes his pieces with his large penis.

[VanVeen]

good posts, punter.

i'd like to add that because the problem space is so vast in almost all situations one encounters in NLHE it is very likely that a large % of the skill differential b/n 'well educated' players who've mastered the ABCs can be attributed to a random element in strategy selection. fun topic.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
im nowhere near the best in the world @ nlhe

[/ QUOTE ]

Who do you think is way better than you and what is it that makes them better?

[Tulosba]

I hate how they used to call Lederer a chessmaster in older poker broadcasts, he's not even FIDE-rated.

Also chess has less luck involved, however i am not sure that makes it a game of more skill though.

[Terrabon98]

I haven't read any of the replies, and have no material information to add to this thread, but just thought I'd pop in to say that I really enjoy your posts Samo. Keep up the good work.