[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, poker is a game of incomplete information and this impacts how you can discuss it because the number of possible outcomes goes up too fast to consider every option. It's been years since I've read about chess, but I recall a lot of situational analysis. This isn't always what top poker is about.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's interesting you say that because "the number of possible outcomes goes up too fast to consider every option" is precisely the reason you can't prove much in chess either (and there are far fewer options in poker). The only reason chess masters can analyze things is that they've learned by experience that certain positions look fundamentally good or bad to them by eye. For example, "If white does this and black does this and white does this and black does this, I can't think ahead any more moves than that but the position looks pretty good for white at that point." They don't have any proof of anything at all (except, as I mentioned before, when they can prove forced checkmate in a short number of moves).