chess or poker

[krammatrix]

Samoleus,

It seems clear that, even in high stakes games, there are always going to be players that make significant mistakes, and that although chess grandmasters still make mistakes, they would probably be much fewer and farther between, I would guess (i don't play chess seriously). Since there are more holes to exploit at the highest levels, it would seem that it would take less skill to be successful in the highest games in poker as opposed to at the highest level in chess. What do you think?

[CopTHIS]

[ QUOTE ]
As silly as this may sound, it is very true. the fact that one poker tournament would not define the best player in poker nearly as often as in chess does not necessarily speak to the amount of skill requires to reach a world class level.

Another way of looking at it would be to take a month's worth of cash game results in poker and use that as an equivalent sample as a single chess tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that is really a comparable sample. OK, the nature of the games are different but comparing one chess tournament with a month's worth of poker doesn't seem quite right.

Of course there are lots of angles to look at, but another is considering how many people, from a young age, would have the potential to be world class at poker or chess. I would say that far more people would have a chance at poker. That doesn't imply that there is more skill needed in chess to get to a certain level, but the fact that fewer people have the potential to get there elevates chess in my view.

[neverforgetlol]

Also if you make a mistake in poker many times you can make up for it before the hand is over (say you play a bad hand, but you bluff someone out of the pot anyway) while in chess if you make a mistake it's there for everyone to see.

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
are you trying to contend that there is equal skill required in any activity that cannot be played perfectly?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what i would contend. There is a limited amount of skill required in tic-tac-toe so skill level required can be defined.

How can you compare skill levels for a games which nobody can play perfectly such as poker, baseball, or chess? The skill level required for all of these games cannot be defined since nobody can play them perfectly.

[kiwi]

(Samo - This is a serious contribution to an interesting debate).

Sky City Auckland. $1/$2 nl. Min buy in $100. A cruise ship is in town, and 2 Aussie couples are staying at the hotel, before leaving on the cruise the next day. They are nice, and have been drinking all day. They sit down at 7pm - (when the tables open) and "Bruce" is drinking around 4 beers per hour.
After 3 hours play, his wife and his mates wife have left, his mate is abusing him, and the table is divided into 2 camps. The ones who want him gone (this includes the inexperienced dealer - Bruce is in the 5 seat, and his
gazillion chips, unstacked, means the dealer has to place his cards mid-table). And the ones who want him to stay. Bruce is playing slowly because he is drunk and seems inexperienced, but his $2000 covers the table and he is winning.

To keep him in the game (fun to sit next to/potential donator...not sure which?) I am "stealing" his chips when he is not looking and racking them for him - I also see many of his starting hands, some of which are surprisingly good. He is ejected from the game quite efficiently by the floor when he "loses" his cards for the umpteenth time (mucked by dealer before he has seen them) having kicked ass for around 4 hours, blind drunk. (In an interesting postscript, his wife comes back to the table around 1.00 am in search of DrunkBruce and tells us he plays pub freerolls - apparently common in there part of Australia due to no casinos)

When both games are played simply, by simple people, chess stands out as requiring significantly more skill to succeed.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
this has always been true ...

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?


But seriously, until Alekhine chess did not have the tradition of endless study and preparation that it features today.

[Money2Burn]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad someone who knows both games better than me agrees [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Seriously guys; most of poker is a monkey game. If you're not retarded, Read HoH and you'll be a winner in almost any game in the world. Just to be an average tournament chessplayer requires WAY more study/intellectual work than being a very winning poker player. With all due respect, much of NLHE can be reduced to logic monkeys can understand. Good luck making pot odds/implied odds/EV calcuations look like they're in the same universe as accurately judging an endgame 15 moves down the line, anyone who cares to try [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason that much of poker seems like a "monkey game" isn't because it requieres less skill it is because poker is incredibly popular right now and there are TONS of people playing, at all levels, who just plain suck i.e. me. Therefor the skill level of most poker games has dropped.

[JaBlue]

not going to make a serious argument because I can't see any kind of argument to be made for poker being more difficult and requiring more skill.

I do want to say, though, that I don't think brilliancy in a poker match can rival brilliancy in a chess match. If you've ever seen one of the great games of chess (and have some understanding of the game...), I think you know this to be true.

[DMACM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see no theoretical way in which chess or poker can be played perfectly

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong, Nash proved this for games even with multiple players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nash equillibrium means a perfect strategy for games like no limit holdem and hi-lo split? IF nash's theory is applicable here I would contend that the dominant strategy we are seeking is unreachable by humans who will always seek to derive more information from each other and unwittingly give information away. If a game cannot be played perfectly by a human than it is in effect a game of infinite skill.

What requires more skill soccer or basketball? Since I can always imagine a better player, stronger faster etc. I dont think this is a valid question.

Poker skill is more difficult to determine because of its introduction of probability but this takes nothing away from the amount of skill involved in it.

[psyduck]

I think everyone that hasn't read AJFenix's post should scroll up and read it. He brings up very good points (one or two previous mentioned) and expresses it in a concise fashiom.