chess or poker

[samoleus]

I have a question targeted primarily to the serious chess players in the poker community. I was wondering which game you think requires more skill. I know that is a very general question, but I was hoping that might generate some spirited discussion.

I am a chess master in the United States Chess Federation (though I have not been active in about three years - about the time that I have been playing poker seriously), and I have some pretty detailed opinions on this. I'll provide them later, but I was wondering what others thought on the matter.

[yvesaint]

ummm i thought the answer was pretty obvious

[ggbman]

Without really being good at chess at all (or poker [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]), i would have to think it's chess. You can dictate the game more than with poker, as there are many moves that your opponent must have a direct and specifc response to, which top players are going to maniupulate. The same is true in poker, however, there is also more of a luck factor and it's a partical information game, whereas chess is not. For that primary reason, i would guess that the highest levels of chess require more skill.

Also Samo, wtf, you are a chess master, ex professional athlete, and poker master. WHERE ARE THE HOLES IN YOUR LIFE!?

[Subfallen]

Question is too general IMO. You need to give us some quantifiable means of equating a skill level in chess with skill level in poker.

Also, how do you define skill?

[samoleus]

ggbman, thanks for the compliments man - I really appreciate it.

Some (but not nearly all) basic arguments for chess would be:

- no one can be a world class chess player without much much more study and experience than it takes to be a world class poker player

- the game is more analytical and requires more complex thought

- calculation is both more important and more difficult than in poker

- the margin between great players and good players is much more than in poker

Some (but again, not all) basics for poker:

- while the imagination/creativity factor is similar to that in chess, the psychological factor is greater

- in chess, it is nearly always best to play one exact move in a given situation in a game while poker is deeper than that; a plethora of factors enter every situation which can make the "right" play different in exactly the same situation on a different day or session.

- much more emotional control and general temerity is required in poker

- computers can beat all but the best humans in chess; computers on the other hand will probably never be able to beat the best humans in poker. this is probably indicative of the greater intangibles in poker than in chess.

- in poker, one has to be able to adjust much more for specific opponents, moods, etc.

There are more arguments on both sides, but I wanted to creat some initial points for discussion ...

[HEK]

chess and it's not close. There is ZERO luck factor in chess. The better player will win in the short run AND long run.

Samo,

Pro athlete? Huh?

[ggbman]

He played soccer professionally.

[Megenoita]

More skill is required in chess mainly because there are strategies in poker that can be simple yet effective, i.e., being random. In chess, it's a battle of intelligence, and there are no easy ways to win. There is no "pushing around" in chess, or purely psychological factors. Because there are more resources for a player to employ, poker offers a less skilled player overall more opportunities to outplay his villain.

[PartyGirlUK]

[ QUOTE ]
He played soccer professionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the US or in a proper league?

[samoleus]

Megenoita, there is no way that a player can win at poker simply by "being random" or by "pushing around" when the situation does not call for it. Poker requires much more skill than that.