chess or poker

[durrrr]

[ QUOTE ]
I´m sure it will be possible for computers to play perfect game theory poker at some point, and thus be unbeatable. (if put enough effort into anyway.)


[/ QUOTE ]

This is nowhere near true... I'm almost positive that a computer could never beat a top LHE player over an extended amount of time (if the software couldnt be updated mid-game), and i am positive a computer couldnt beat a top NLHE player over an extended amount of time (as long as they were playing slightly deep).

[Rev. Good Will]

poker, cause games of perfect information are for pussies

[Shandrax]

To play chess on a high level is quite a difficult task. People realize pretty fast how bad they are and that's why chess tournaments cannot generate that much money.

Regardless how many local tournaments Harrington, Robertie and Lederer won*, I doubt that they were anywhere near professional level and with that I mean a minimum of IM strength (Elo 2400+). Besides that, from the trio only Robertie made it into Chessbase. Looking at his openings it is quite obvious that Fischer was his idol, which is not surprising given the fact that these games date back to 1967.

*Even a state championship means pretty much nothing in terms of "real" chess.

[bruceypants]

Have you ever referred to one of your fellow chess players as a "donk?" I read a book on chess in college and am still clueless as to how to play the game. One of my buddies in third grade taught me how to play poker in about 5 minutes.

I would imagine that a high-level chess player will have a much higher IQ than a high-level poker player. All you have to do is look through this thread at all the miss-spelings and incorrect grammer usage to get an idea of the IQ of the good players on this forum.

An argument could be made that poker requires a different skill set, but its hard to argue that poker requires more skill. For example, in the hand where Raymer got knocked out of the ME last year, Raymer said afterwards that "I felt like [my opponent] was on a draw." Well, once you read your opponent as having a draw on the turn, your opponent goes all-in, and you have an overpair ... well your decision is easy. Just because a computer can't be taught to read human emotions doesn't mean that poker is a more difficult game. It's different, but certainly it is not more difficult.

[subblime]

I used to be an expert in chess some years ago and I think poker is much different, leading many decent chess players to become much worse poker players than they can be.

In chess, you challenge yourself to play against the best while in ring game NL, you try to beat the worst players, mostly. Chess has gamesmanship and planning, etc which is great for poker but in general, I think chess players make better tournament players and often play beneath their potential in ring games.

[SCBielski]

I play both chess and poker seriously and at a pretty high level. The biggest and most obvious difference between poker and chess is luck. You can play perfectly in poker and still lose while if you play perfectly in chess you will certainly win. You have complete control over the outcome of a game in chess, unlike poker. There is no one to blame but yourself for losing in chess, whereas in poker you can blame losing on luck, the bad play of your opponent, etc. Finally, the best chess player could never lose to the worst chess play...EVER. The "best" poker player (note that it is impossible to determine who is even the best at poker) could lose to a first time poker player given the right circumstances, which is what has been happening recently in the 2006 WSOP to many pros that go heads up against first time WSOP players. So I guess to sum it up, both games require an incredible amount of skill at their highest level, but skill makes more of a difference in chess than it does in poker...but then again when is the last time someone took down $12 million in a chess tournament?

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm almost positive that a computer could never beat a top LHE player over an extended amount of time (if the software couldnt be updated mid-game).

[/ QUOTE ] Do you not agree that there is a way to play HU limit holdem perfectly according to game theory, thus making you unbeatable? Or is it somehow a computer doing it that is the problem?

[Shandrax]

I would not compare tournament poker with chess. Poker depends on the long run factor, so if anything use limit poker. There is a reason why the backgammon championships are played in a best-of format.

[Azalin]

I am a chess master also (ELO 2270). Chess is way more difficult and it requires a LOT more study. Besides many grandmasters change from chess to poker cause thats were the $$ is if you are not in the top 100 in ELO rankings. If i beat 10/20 limit i make more money per month than the average grand master easily.

[Oxy]

[ QUOTE ]
obviously chess, not even remotely close.

[/ QUOTE ]


+ the game of chess is still changing.