chess or poker

[captZEEbo]

people that are saying chess hands down are mixing some things up what the question is asking. It's easier to become a winning player at poker than a "winning" player at chess.

[dardo]

[ QUOTE ]
people that are saying chess hands down are mixing some things up what the question is asking. It's easier to become a winning player at poker than a "winning" player at chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

A clear HSNL winner than a Chess Master? I severely doubt it.

regards,

dardo

[edge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
people that are saying chess hands down are mixing some things up what the question is asking. It's easier to become a winning player at poker than a "winning" player at chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

A clear HSNL winner than a Chess Master? I severely doubt it.

regards,

dardo

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that a good player at poker plays those who are much weaker in skill. A good player at chess plays those who are close to his level in skill. I would say it's much easier to become a good chess player, assuming that the skill of one's opponent in chess or poker is stable at a low level and does not scale with the good player's. Someone who is even mediocre at competitive chess could beat a chess "fish" much more handily than a mediocre high-stakes poker player could beat a poker "fish".

[Dazarath]

Without reading all the responses, I'm guessing chess. My thinking is this. If you were to plot out both games in their game theoretical extensive forms, I imagine that chess would have a much larger tree. Of course, some games with large trees don't necessarily take a lot of skill. Also, the fact that poker is an imperfect information game might swing the answer a little over the other way, as there's the aspect of psychology, etc. This is just a guess, though.

[PaulDLane]

Poker "Hands down" You can be a winning player at chess,and still not be able to make a living at it.I do not know how many "chess" players have taken up Poker byt it is alot. The point is Poker is so easy if you are a half way decent chessmaster you cna easily make a nice living at Poker. I think a clear example of this is chess grandmaster Walter
Browne, he won six us chess championships and for many
years was atop usa player. How does he make his living? Poker! he also made a strong showing at the 50k horse event in the world series.

[zaphod]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker "Hands down" You can be a winning player at chess,and still not be able to make a living at it.I do not know how many "chess" players have taken up Poker byt it is alot. The point is Poker is so easy if you are a half way decent chessmaster you cna easily make a nice living at Poker. I think a clear example of this is chess grandmaster Walter
Browne, he won six us chess championships and for many
years was atop usa player. How does he make his living? Poker! he also made a strong showing at the 50k horse event in the world series.

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not show that chess is more difficult than poker. It only shows that there are more money in poker than chess and that there are currently lots of bad poker players.
On a theoretical level against very good opositions it is possible that poker could be more difficult than chess.

I am not saying that poker is more difficult than chess, but you have not shown the opposite to be true.

[fanmail]

The 2 skill sets required for the games are different. Obviously, the skill vs luck factor has been brought up many times already. I am not sure which game requires more skill or is more difficult to master. However, I think to beat the best in chess is much harder than it is to beat the best in poker. If a winning chess player took on the best player in the world, the world champ would win virtually every time. However, if a mid stakes winning poker player took on the best player in the world, the middle of the road guy probably will take some games off the best player. That being said, I still don't know which game takes more skill. Nice topic.