chess or poker

[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.