chess or poker

[DMACM]

I see no theoretical way in which chess or poker can be played perfectly therefore I would say there is an equal (infinite) amount of skill in either. That there is no luck in chess is inconsequential.

[samoleus]

I think this is way too simplistic. are you trying to contend that there is equal skill required in any activity that cannot be played perfectly?

[MDMA]

[ QUOTE ]
I see no theoretical way in which chess or poker can be played perfectly

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong, Nash proved this for games even with multiple players.

[zaphod]

[ 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.

[samoleus]

this has always been true ...

[CopTHIS]

[ 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.

[KingNeo]

[ 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 ]

Firstly, let me just say that I do agree with this statement.

Secondly, if we are to compare the 2 games then I think the most important "skill" in poker is the psychological aspect. This includes both the mental aspect in playing against opponents and controlling your own emotions.

This emotional aspect of the game is probably the most difficult for people to master, much more difficult than doing simple artithmetic. Like Sam touched on, this is not really a major factor in chess.

I am prettty good at chess (probably because of my engineering background), but I have not studied it nor played it as much as I have with poker.

With this said, I don't really want to compare the two games as far as skill level is concenred because I think it is too difficult.

[AJFenix]

I think VanVeen brings up some very good/interesting points about the current state of poker, and what it has the capability of becoming. Chess has certainly been mastered to a much greater degree than poker as of right now. Poker, however, is almost too good to be true, as deep down it is a very complex game that has qualities that attract inadequately trained opponents over whom you have a significant edge that may be unrealized by them, due to short-term variance and the illusions it can paint, and they agree to play you for large sums of money. Poker is like a genetically engineered beast created to destroy people with weak minds, with an endgame that really hasn't been realized, and most likely won't be for a long time, if ever.

Poker, unlike chess, is primarily played for money, and it only makes sense that the top players would much rather take money from weak opponents over whom their edge is huge, rather than playing in games where their edge is much smaller. The focus on learning is learning what is correct in the current dynamic of the game, vs your current opponents. Since that is the case, not as much thought is put into optimal play vs optimal opponents, as it isn't necessary or helpful as far as the task at hand. This stalls the same learning process that got chess to where it is right now. As far as chess, numerous brilliant minds put in countless hours over many centuries researching optimal play vs opponents trying to do the very same. Poker has not been researched and developed to even a fraction of that degree.

The current top poker players do not have their craft mastered to nearly the same degree as the chess masters, simply because that level of the game hasn't been realized yet. The game may slowly shift toward an endgame as fish decrease, good players increase, and the game is further studied and developed, but its very unlikely to ever happen. For chess, the endgame is already here. Therefor as it is, in my opinion, chess in its current dynamic requires a lot more cognitive ability than the game of poker in its current dynamic, but poker on its highest level, which may never be reached, would likely be the more demanding game and would also require a broader range of necessary ability to master it.

[zaphod]

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but i think that all this shows is that the luck element is highest in poker, and higher in bridge than in chess.
Using this logic you could argue that tic tac toe is harder than poker, since a good player will beat a bad player more often in tic tac toe than in poker.
[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[samoleus]

As silly as this may sound, it is very true. the fact that one poker tournament would not define the best player in poker nearly as often as in chess does not necessarily speak to the amount of skill requires to reach a world class level.

Another way of looking at it would be to take a month's worth of cash game results in poker and use that as an equivalent sample as a single chess tournament.