|
|
#151
08-01-2006, 01:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: chess or poker
Interesting question. Have ruminated on it myself for years.
Sort of curious as to how to directly compare the two. The games reach--or don't reach-- their respective conclusions in vastly different ways. A single wrong move in chess among players of tantamount skill can quite easily determine the outcome. A mistake in poker results in...? busting out of a tournament? Reloading? an outdraw? I suppose it is possible to couch both as timeless, dynamic games at which one aspires to be a lifetime winner. But I think a single chess match far better elucidates any disparity in skill far moreso than does a single HU session in poker. 
|
|
#152
08-01-2006, 01:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: chess or poker
[ QUOTE ]
But I think a single chess match far better elucidates any disparity in skill far moreso than does a single HU session in poker. [/ QUOTE ] this is true, yet irrelevant to OP's question. The element of chance being involved does not mean one is harder than the other
|
|
#153
08-01-2006, 01:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: chess or poker
I wouldn't then conclude irrelevance. Instead it speaks to the infintesimal skill increments by which chess players are differentiated. One could then conclude that sustaining winning tendencies in chess is muich harder.
|
|
#154
08-01-2006, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: chess or poker
[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't then conclude irrelevance. Instead it speaks to the infintesimal skill increments by which chess players are differentiated. One could then conclude that sustaining winning tendencies in chess is muich harder. [/ QUOTE ] I would, OP asked which is harder, not which makes it most clear whom the better player(s) is.
|
|
#155
08-01-2006, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: chess or poker
Ok, if chess rankings are determined by much narrower margins, reason should dictate that the upper echelon of players is inherently more skilled, thus making the game harder to conquer.
|
|
#157
08-01-2006, 02:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Statistical Analysis
I can't find it now, but I once saw someone do a statistical analysis on this very question. The logic went something like this:
1) identify a skill interval such that the player at the top of the skill interval beats the player at the bottom 75% of the time 2) count how many of those intervals seperate the worst player from the best player. The guy's conclusion was that poker had more skill tiers than chess, but Go had like twice as many as poker.
|
|
#158
08-01-2006, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: chess or poker
[ 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".
|
|
#159
08-02-2006, 03:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: chess or poker
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
