chess or poker

[siegfriedandroy]

yeah, but even still, i think the question is asking which of the games is 'more difficult' to master.

[Ryendal]

I am agree with AJ phenix, my thoughts, but too hard for me to explain some complexes ideas in english.

I think there is an important point. In chess, when you are weak, you understand it very quicly ( unless you are a total idiot ) and you understand where you are weak. Then you are able to increase your level in each weak points.

At poker, it is totally different. It can take a very long time to detect a weak point. Many people do not increase there level because of that. It is very difficult to find your weaks points.

[siegfriedandroy]

hey. what nationality are you? yea, you're posts make sense to me. im kinda drunk, so please semi-disregard all of the following!!

i suk hard at chess (probably the total idiot ryendal mentioned!), but hope that i am decent in poker. i have been making 2k a week and surviving off of it, but not for too long a period.

to me, chess intuitively requires much more skill. but this is on a basic level. ultimately, at the farthest reaches of the imagination, perhaps poker requires just as much. i have no clue. but i know it's pretty easy to cream donks, and also that i couldnt last 30 seconds against an intermediate club chess player. in terms of results, poker requires infinitely less skill. it is relatively easy to 'do well' at poker. the question needs to be specified, although i do think the discussion has been good.

[ QUOTE ]
I am agree with AJ phenix, my thoughts, but too hard for me to explain some complexes ideas in english.

I think there is an important point. In chess, when you are weak, you understand it very quicly ( unless you are a total idiot ) and you understand where you are weak. Then you are able to increase your level in each weak points.

At poker, it is totally different. It can take a very long time to detect a weak point. Many people do not increase there level because of that. It is very difficult to find your weaks points.

[/ QUOTE ]

[mikechops]

[ QUOTE ]
I am agree with AJ phenix, my thoughts, but too hard for me to explain some complexes ideas in english.

I think there is an important point. In chess, when you are weak, you understand it very quicly ( unless you are a total idiot ) and you understand where you are weak. Then you are able to increase your level in each weak points.

At poker, it is totally different. It can take a very long time to detect a weak point. Many people do not increase there level because of that. It is very difficult to find your weaks points.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a very good point. I'm not particularly good at either game, but I am reasonably good at backgammon. It isn't too hard though, because computers can analyze your play and tell you when you made a bad play. It can be tough to work out why your move was wrong, but it's a lot easier to improve, than if you had no idea it was wrong at all.

I'm guessing chess is more like backgammon in this regard.

Also, doesn't the number of people competing to be the best matter? I'd guess that means it's more difficult to be a dragon than a than world chess champion.

[Enzyme]

All this "highest levels of poker" talk is quite weird. We can talk a lot about levels of thinking and game theory, but game theory is not that complicated of a subject applying to poker. As far as levels of thinking is concerned, you can find infinite levels of thinking in rock, paper, scissors. You don't here anybody comparing it to chess.

Amount of effort and considerations behind every move on the chessboard far exceeds anything you consider during any betting rounds. And people who think that emotional and mental aspects of chess are not significant are flat out wrong. Take a closer look at Tal and Fischer careers, for example, those are fascinating by itself, even out of context of any discussion.

[ilya]

I was 2180USCF when I stopped playing about 8 years ago. For me, poker is waaaaay harder. For one, in chess you have more time to think and can better prepare for specific situations in advance. Also, it's a lot easier to improve at chess since you can get objective feeback...did I solve that problem correctly, did it take me less time than last time, etc...whereas in poker I gotta worry about whether the feedback I'm getting is worth a damn. Also, chess requires much less courage and psychological insight. And short lapses of concentration are less costly...you can take a break from paying attention since there isn't always new info to absorb. Finally chess is much easier on the nerves. So, yeah...I'm sure it's different for others, but for me, chess to poker is like, well, checkers to chess.

P.S. They really should add chess to the King of The Zoo event roster.

[dardo]

[ 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

[dardo]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that a computer can be better @ chess than poker can be used as an argument for both being more difficult. Both are v interesting and complex games imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is exactly the point.

regards,

dardo

[dardo]

[ QUOTE ]
I figure mathematical speed may be the most important skill in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is curious, as I have found the mathematical part of poker, simply obvious.

regards,

dardo

[dardo]

[ QUOTE ]
- the game is more analytical and requires more complex thought

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think analytical thought and complex mean the same. I think strategic thought and global vision are really the top position of the human thought possibilities.

The question would be, a chess player can really master chess through analytical thought only, like computers? I doubt it, I'm sure he will need to be a great strategist to really master the game.

So, both poker and chess will need the same kind of bright person to really get to master them.

And, so I think, will need all the things in life who are complex enough.

And so it has been proved once and again, as great chess players became great poker players.

regards,

dardo