chess or poker

[Leptyne]

IMHO the differing games require different skill sets. It is not unheard of, but certainly rare, for players at the top levels to be able to master both skill sets. Like sports, there are athletes coming out of high school or college that can turn pro at more than one sport, and of course there are players that have played two sports at the same time (baseball and football). Chess and poker not only require different skill sets but appeal to different personalities. It will be rare to find anyone interested in being a Grandmaster of both.

[LearnedfromTV]

Just wanted to say AJ Fenix's post is awesome.

[benlj21]

I'd like to add to all of this that poker requires lots of self-control, requires you to take your ego out of the game and not play any game you can buyin for, and generally have good bankroll management skills. That's hard.

[Parlay Slow]

[ QUOTE ]
Just wanted to say AJ Fenix's post is awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

AJFenix's post is a rambling mess of pseudo-intellectual tripe.

[MDMA]

Answer your PMs some of the time Parlay [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Parlay Slow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just wanted to say AJ Fenix's post is awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

AJFenix's post is a rambling mess of pseudo-intellectual tripe.

[/ QUOTE ]

this post was a joke to get AJFenix riled up

i'm confident that you guys can critically review the value of it all by yourselves

MDMA i'll get with you asap..

[yellowsub]

i used to play chess competitevely when i was in grade school, i was top 5 in the state @ one point. i think that in terms of overall skill, chess req's more, because there are more avenues of study in openings & defences, & end game theory etc. poker is a much better game to wager $ on, because there is the luck factor which skilled players can make work in their favor as much as possible, but as we all know, any fish can drag any pot w/ a good deal of luck.

[Leptyne]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is 100% clear to me: as far as skill goes chess>bridge>poker

[/ QUOTE ]

I have played bridge, backgammon and poker. For me it is quite clear that

poker>bridge>backgammon.

It is also quite clear that chess is far more difficult than bridge and backgammon.
As for where you need more skill poker or chess i really don't know since i have not played much chess. I would guess you would need more skill in chess, but would not be suprised if is true that poker theoretically could be a deeper game than chess if played at the highest level.

Maybee it is almost a impossible question to answer, as i would assume that it is different skills that are needed to become great in poker and chess. I would assume that there are some very good chess players that would have little chance of getting decent poker players, and certanly also some very good poker players that would be hopeless in chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I've played lots of bridge, poker and chess and I look at it like this. Suppose we had a field of 100 people for each game, of a similar range of relative ability and we held a tournament to find a winner. Which game would give you most confidence that the winner would actually be one of the best players? For me I'd say chess is by far the number one, then bridge then poker. I know there are other ways of looking at it, as has been pointed out, but the object of each game is to win and it's much harder to beat better players in chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're talking about a Duplicate Bridge tournament I think it would be similar to WSOP Final Table in that the same familiar teams would consistently be there. Come to think of it why couldn't there be a Duplicate Poker tournament?

[Leptyne]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this has always been true ...

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY?


But seriously, until Alekhine chess did not have the tradition of endless study and preparation that it features today.

[/ QUOTE ]


Bobby Fischer was an International Grandmaster at age 15 wins the World Championship at age 29.

[CopTHIS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is 100% clear to me: as far as skill goes chess>bridge>poker

[/ QUOTE ]

I have played bridge, backgammon and poker. For me it is quite clear that

poker>bridge>backgammon.

It is also quite clear that chess is far more difficult than bridge and backgammon.
As for where you need more skill poker or chess i really don't know since i have not played much chess. I would guess you would need more skill in chess, but would not be suprised if is true that poker theoretically could be a deeper game than chess if played at the highest level.

Maybee it is almost a impossible question to answer, as i would assume that it is different skills that are needed to become great in poker and chess. I would assume that there are some very good chess players that would have little chance of getting decent poker players, and certanly also some very good poker players that would be hopeless in chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I've played lots of bridge, poker and chess and I look at it like this. Suppose we had a field of 100 people for each game, of a similar range of relative ability and we held a tournament to find a winner. Which game would give you most confidence that the winner would actually be one of the best players? For me I'd say chess is by far the number one, then bridge then poker. I know there are other ways of looking at it, as has been pointed out, but the object of each game is to win and it's much harder to beat better players in chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're talking about a Duplicate Bridge tournament I think it would be similar to WSOP Final Table in that the same familiar teams would consistently be there. Come to think of it why couldn't there be a Duplicate Poker tournament?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking duplicate, it's always produced very good winners in all the events I've played in. I guess some form of duplicate poker would seem a bit contrived, but it would be possible to play a version heads-up. It only takes away some of the luck element, but it would be kinda interesting.