chess or poker

[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.

[Max Buyin]

[ QUOTE ]
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...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I may not have been able to make the point as clear as I would like it to be. In this instance, if I look up your line in ECO Busted or something, chances are I will never fall prey to it again. In poker, the same instance can come up again and again, but the correct decision is not always the same.

"Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake."

Yes but mistakes are made in chess due to incomplete analysis of the board. This is why I say that the myriad difference in chess is that there is no missing information. There is no guessing as to what your opponent may have, and to an extent, what he is planning. In poker, eventually, you'll have to let the odds take your side in the long haul, independant on the information that is missing.


To make my point, I think chess requires the greater amount of skill. Both games are won by the mistakes of others, but it is alot easier to recover from your mistakes in poker, than in chess. Besides, I don't know of any good chess player who actively seeks out weaker players to beat, and avoids stronger players. (yes, I am aware that some people are ranking whores, but they'll only land themselves in trouble with an unjustified ranking) However most of poker is about the earn. Playing weaker players is ideal for success in poker. Beating stronger players is the only way to succeed in chess.

[Megenoita]

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.