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.

[Megenoita]

baronzeus, do you think that's true of the highest levels of NLHE, though?

I believe it was Sklansky who said in TOP that poker can be, at times, more complex than Bridge.

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing is clear, an amateur like Moneymaker could have never won a big chess tournament, probably not even a small one. In chess the better player has a much bigger edge, both in the short and in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're confusing variance with skill differential. To close the gap, consider if Moneymaker played Farha 2 billion times head's up, who would win the vast majority? Farha's edge is as large as an FM's against an amateur.

[siegfriedandroy]

hey. glad i found this, since i usually dont read this forum too often. i was actually just thinking about this question on my way back from the grocery store!

i am not so great at chess, but have never played too seriously (im probably around 1500ish). lately ive been studying the game a bit, trying to improve. i kind of want to prove to myself that im capable of becoming a decent player. in a strange way, i feel paranoid that if I cannot get good at chess, then perhaps i can never become great at poker, since both require a pretty high mental acumen to be very good.

but perhaps i should not worry about this- maybe the correlation between the two isn't all that parallel. i am very good w/ numbers, math, etc, and have a reasonably high iq, and am hopeful that this is sufficient to make me a pretty good poker player. well, enough rambling.

fwiw, i think it's a lot more difficult to be a 'pretty good' chess player than a 'pretty good' poker player. but to be great, i have no idea.

[Megenoita]

"...when 2 'very good' chess players play each other, their edge on each other cant be that great. when 2 'very good' poker players play HU, one of them will almost always have a clear edge. "

I'd say the edge each respective superior player has on his opponent is about the same-both will have the edge directly related to how much better they are than the other (terrible grammar but I'm tired).

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
Asking whether poker or chess requires more skill is similar to asking the same question about poker and baseball. Neither can be answered because they both require completely different skill sets.

[/ QUOTE ]

what is your evidence for this assertion?

[siegfriedandroy]

im not sure really what you mean by 'equal amount of skill'. skill at what? also, poker obviously has a far greater element of chance, despite your comments.

[ QUOTE ]
both games require an equal amount of skill IMO.

Also can you really say there is one BEST poker player or one BEST chess player? Either game is is about keeping many pieces of information in your head at once. The person who can keep the most pieces of information in their head will win in the most in the long run.

It is the same thing as comparing the BEST classical composer to the BEST computer programmer or the BEST philosopher. They are all using many of the same muscles IMO.

Also IMO both games have some element of chance. For example if you make an error your opponent may or may not take advantage of it properly. People of equal skill may be paying attention to different aspects of the game and will take advantage of different errors. If there was no chance in the game chess players could just play eachother once and know who is better (until one of them studies more).

[/ QUOTE ]

[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.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
Only have a minute before bed now, but had to comment on this interesting point. Expect something more detailed tomorrow.

I'm 2100 (and change) FIDE, and a competent poker player. . . I think chess is immeasurably more difficult. Now that I'm trying to go from expert to master, I'm working very hard on chess for the first time in my life, and it's almost surreal how vast it is. You could spend a lifetime studying a single New in Chess yearbook, or one Dvoretsky text on the endgame. From the intellectual and psychological standpoints, chess is the hardest thing I do. . .

And I'm not even a master yet!

Just my two cents. Cheers.

[/ QUOTE ]


i havent thought too deeply yet about the OP's question, but initially i tend to share your views. chess seems far more complex and involved to me. i understand that there are tons of intricacies in poker as well, but often the significance in ev between two different lines is almost infinitesimal.

i also think chess probably correlates better w/ IQ. To be truly great at chess, you probably need a pretty dam high IQ. I think in poker, a high level of play is more attainable for those w/ only reasonably high IQ's (i.e. Doyle Brunson is widely considered one of the best in the world. I could be wrong, but judging by how he writes and thinks, I don't think his IQ is astronomically high. Anyone know what his IQ is?