chess or poker

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
g- no one can be a world class chess player without much much more study and experience than it takes to be a world class poker player


[/ QUOTE ]


this is not true, iirc

[/ QUOTE ]

i think it is true.

[KingDan]

[ QUOTE ]

There is not any TOP 10 player in the chess world who started chess after 10 years, because it is impossible to begin very strong if you don't start very early. And these TOP 10 players work at least 6 hours every day since they started.


[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC Smyslov (sp?) didn't start playing seriously until he was 12 or 13.

There are a number of incredibly strong chess players who didn't start young.

[Ryendal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There is not any TOP 10 player in the chess world who started chess after 10 years, because it is impossible to begin very strong if you don't start very early. And these TOP 10 players work at least 6 hours every day since they started.


[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC Smyslov (sp?) didn't start playing seriously until he was 12 or 13.

There are a number of incredibly strong chess players who didn't start young.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are talking about a very old time.

Lasker also started at 12.
But at least, from 40 years,I am right and even worse.
at 6 started at 6, Karpov at 5, Kasparov at 6, Kramnik at 4.

The record is for Tchigorin who started at 16, 17 years, but it was more than one hundred years, and the level was not comparable theses days

[no_skills]

you turrrrrrrrrd

[quickfetus]

Only have a minute before bed now, but had to comment on this interesting point. Expect something more detailed tomorrow.

I'm 2100 (and change) FIDE, and a competent poker player. . . I think chess is immeasurably more difficult. Now that I'm trying to go from expert to master, I'm working very hard on chess for the first time in my life, and it's almost surreal how vast it is. You could spend a lifetime studying a single New in Chess yearbook, or one Dvoretsky text on the endgame. From the intellectual and psychological standpoints, chess is the hardest thing I do. . .

And I'm not even a master yet!

Just my two cents. Cheers.

[raptor517]

the differences in skills at the highest levels are VASTLY different in poker than in chess. granted, i know next to nothing about chess, but when 2 'very good' chess players play each other, their edge on each other cant be that great. when 2 'very good' poker players play HU, one of them will almost always have a clear edge.

however, to become a good winning player at chess i think it takes more work than to become a good winning poker player. also, ummm.. the money sucks in chess, sooooo.. other than a form of relaxation or whatever, its kinda useless. holla

[quickfetus]

[ QUOTE ]
obviously chess, not even remotely close. Ask any titled chessplayer and I'm pretty sure they will give you the same answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad someone who knows both games better than me agrees [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Seriously guys; most of poker is a monkey game. If you're not retarded, Read HoH and you'll be a winner in almost any game in the world. Just to be an average tournament chessplayer requires WAY more study/intellectual work than being a very winning poker player. With all due respect, much of NLHE can be reduced to logic monkeys can understand. Good luck making pot odds/implied odds/EV calcuations look like they're in the same universe as accurately judging an endgame 15 moves down the line, anyone who cares to try [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[Hiltonian]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're not retarded, Read HoH and you'll be a winner in almost any game in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]
You hold HoH with very high esteem I see.

[VanVeen]

if you're not retarded you can easily dominate the average person at chess without lessons. with lessons you can beat them 'artistically'. with more lessons you can beat people much smarter than you if they're new to the game. so what does that tell us?

chess has been studied for centuries by some very smart people. openings and their various furcations have been analysed exhaustively by countless aspiring grandmasters. because of the availability of all of this information the game has become very, very difficult at the intermediate+ levels. not unexpected! poker (esp NL), meanwhile, hasn't been formally studied by anyone, really. many of the top players don't even bother with math because the game is in such a early stage of development that they needn't trouble themselves. simplistic betting strategies and elementary logic suffice. that, however, doesn't mean it will remain so.

[tbart]

I'll teach somebody chess (2400 guy) if they teach me how to not suck at poker, preferably somebody who can beat 5/10 LHE or higher. For the debate, chess is definately harder, and much more work is needed to become decent.