poker vs chess wich is easier??

[Montrealcorp]

Maybe there should be some sort of clarification. Would it be harder to learn how to play chess or poker, if you wanted to become one of the top X% players?

i think its simply this:chess and poker are much more easier to learn today then before simply on the account of more public interest(especaiily for chess in the 70 and poker as in the 2000) and more "good" book to learn from to be a decent player..

1 problem,becoming a top player will be more difficult since the average player will be much stronger and the effect will be sense all the way to the top.

i predict to be a top poker player(like chess now) will be more harder to attain since the level will be much higher there since lot more top player will reach this strengh of top world calls player.
and its only a maths concept....more the base of players is large in any activities,more the % of chance of having super talent emerge from that base increase.
so more new players comes in in the "world of poker",more the chance of super player will emerge and more it will be difficult to dominate poker .(especialy poker compare to chess since in chess u cannot expect to win with he luck factor,but in poker a top player with the luck factor by is side can almost be unbeatble for a while i guess?)

[6471849653]

[ QUOTE ]
how can ego be as strong in poker where chance takes a part in it compare to chess where it doesnt?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one reason and there are other reasons too. Then I should add that chance takes its part at both games. When I play chess and get plainly outplayed, I won't tilt. But if I get outplayed when playing poker, I might; my ego gets hurt. Generally, when it's chess one knows how good one is, while when playing poker one might not. Also, one knows how good the chess opponent is. What comes to the higher amount of luck at poker, it's more tilting, more so to new players.

The whole case of chess vs. poker what comes to tilting and the ego is complex and there are factors for and against; it's not enough to pick one view and think it's the whole case.

[DeepJR]

I've played chess for about 5 years now (uscf = 2107), and I've just recently started playing poker. I have the same sort of hunger now that I had for chess back when I started, and I've been devouring books and articles, as well as putting in tons of hours of practice. Hopefully I can get back to you in 5 years with my subjective answer to your question! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Interesting note that has nothing to do with actually mastering either game: Many very good, even great chess players, are today making the transition to poker, despite having spent most of their lives mastering chess, simply because they can make many times what they could have made at chess with much less effort and time. To be a top flight professional at chess not only do you have to be very gifted from birth, but you have to master centuries of wisdom that has only been built on with the computer age and the advent of deeper opening and endgame knowledge. To be professional at poker you don't have to be anywhere near world class.

[Albert Silver]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know but poker must be more of a mental test, or do chess players go on super mega monkey tilt too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even top players have been known to crash and burn in subsequent games after losing a particularly traumatizing one (ex: blundered away a won game).

Albert

[buddypup]

I play poker and chess every day. I need to play chess on the computer to calm down and relax my brain after a long poker session. Some of the thought proceses are very similar, but I can never in my life beat a chess champion, whereas in poker anyone has a shot to bust anyone else. Poker is a much easier game.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I've played chess for about 5 years now (uscf = 2107)...To be professional at poker you don't have to be anywhere near world class.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason you can't be a chess professional is that
1) you aren't allowed to enter a tournament and play against the USCF 1500 rated players
2) even if you could you would be playing for little or no money.

The concept of a chess rating (bowling handicap, whatever) is huge, contrasted with the lack thereof in poker.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
I play poker and chess every day. I need to play chess on the computer to calm down and relax my brain after a long poker session. Some of the thought proceses are very similar, but I can never in my life beat a chess champion, whereas in poker anyone has a shot to bust anyone else. Poker is a much easier game.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a non sequitur. Poker simply has more variance. I mean, if the contest were 1 putt from 20 feet, I could beat Tiger Woods on any given day of the week. That doesn't make golf an easy game.

[CasinoR7]

[ QUOTE ]
I play poker and chess every day. I need to play chess on the computer to calm down and relax my brain after a long poker session. Some of the thought proceses are very similar, but I can never in my life beat a chess champion, whereas in poker anyone has a shot to bust anyone else. Poker is a much easier game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because poker is a gambling game, you do have a chance to beat a top poker player in the short term. In the long run though you are a big underdog, because you are less skilled. You are like 32 ofsuit against pocket Aces when you compare your own chances against that of a world class poker player. Short term results don't say anything in poker, you need a large sample size to prove something. That doesn't make poker an easier game.

We can have a good discussion on the different skills you need in poker and chess and as well on the similarities between the two games, but trying to determine which one is easier is like comparing apples with oranges.

[DeepJR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've played chess for about 5 years now (uscf = 2107)...To be professional at poker you don't have to be anywhere near world class.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason you can't be a chess professional is that
1) you aren't allowed to enter a tournament and play against the USCF 1500 rated players
2) even if you could you would be playing for little or no money.

The concept of a chess rating (bowling handicap, whatever) is huge, contrasted with the lack thereof in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually wasn't talking about myself being a professional, but rather titled players. But your point still stands, even for below average grandmasters. There is not much money in beating fish.

Interestingly enough, at this point in my life, I guess I technically am a chess professional since I have derived more income from chess then any other avenue thanks to class tournaments like Chicago open and world open (and class prizes in US open type tournies). The problem is that once you win your section you get a nice prize, but have to move up to the next level in subsequent tournaments, which requires a huge jump in skill to be able to win. Even if you can accomplish that, you can only win so many class sections before you have to start playing in the opens, and then you either have to give up, or become one of the best in the country at the very least.

[dirty banana2007]

The british championship has struggled to get the very best english players involved even with good prize money available in the main event. I think this was because the top players were afraid of the results negatively affecting their grades and therefore their invitations to bigger or potentially more lucrative tournaments.