poker vs chess wich is easier??

[silly_monkey]

[ QUOTE ]
The simple nature of adding more players has a HUGE effect on the number of states.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its worth mentioning that almost all of the poker AI research to date is for HU limit games.

Also, I think creating an optimal poker player (in the game theoretical, unexploitable sense) is probably easier than creating a program that plays maximally, i.e. one that tries to exploit its opponents weaknesses as this requires detailed and accurate hand modeling.

[Shandrax]

You see a lot of chess grandmasters switching from chess to poker as the main source of their income recently. The opposite has not been reported yet. Therefore I assume it is easier to be profitable in poker than in chess.

[dirty banana2007]

[ QUOTE ]
You see a lot of chess grandmasters switching from chess to poker as the main source of their income recently. The opposite has not been reported yet. Therefore I assume it is easier to be profitable in poker than in chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is very little money to play chess professionally. Most of the money is earned by the top 5 players in the world. Leaving everyone else trying to scape a living. It is very difficult for chess organisers / promoters to arrange sponsorship tv deals, unlike in poker which is very much flavour of the month (a bit like chess was in the '70's.) Most chess players seem to have other incomes either through writing books and articles, teaching, etc.

A lot of the players have probably found it easier to switch to poker simply because the skills they developed in chess are suitable for poker, for example their ability to think through situations fairly quickly, competitiveness, ability to spend time studying the game, (and opponents!), a good memory, many of the top players are scientists and mathematicians by training.

Many chess players were probably gamblers anyway so the change to playing poker isnt all that surprising.

[6471849653]

Both are hard games. The only difference is that one needs to be an extroverted intuitive thinker if one wants to be a master at chess, or even an expert. Poker is for all people, though it also favors some types, but more of them, but one can make money playing poker at lower limits too, so poker is much nicer, though many prefer playing chess as they get more delight out of it.

[6471849653]

[ QUOTE ]
do chess players go on super mega monkey tilt too?

[/ QUOTE ]

They used to at the Internet Chess Club especially when playing unrated games. But generally less as there are less bad beats and even when one loses it's usually because one either blundered or got outplayed (at poker one tilts from that more often than at chess as there's more ego in poker), not by some sort of a suckout; in that case the chess players tilt as much if not more than the poker players as chess players are not as used to bad beats as poker players are.

[Montrealcorp]

"at poker one tilts from that more often than at chess as there's more ego in poker"

i think this quote is probably one of the most untrue i ever heard.....

how can ego be as strong in poker where chance takes a part in it compare to chess where it doesnt?
in chess u can only loose if u make a mistake?
making stupid mistake vs weak player,and by losing u make them think they are good after they beat u, is tough to swallow,especially when they to weak to realize it...

furthermore,chess is a much tougher intellect challenge then poker since chance has no meaning in it,when u loose vs a bad player u might get very angry and just cant wait to play him again and punish him(forms of tilt)and so,because u know u re much better then him u dont take time to play well and might loose another game vs him again,etc...

btw,if we agree that chess and poker takes intellect abilities to be great at,and chess neeed more intellect then poker to be great at,how can ego be higher in poker then in chess o0....???

some people think chess= being smart
imgagine when they loose vs a guy who plays for 15 years and just cant get better,when the "smarts" guys loose vs those bad player,they take it personally and cant stand the fact that the bad player doest realize that they didnt win the game but the good players lost the game....,etc..

ego,snob,etc..i just cant think any place where i saw those "quality" being outrageously present in chess rooom,tourney or chess cafe then any other place or w/e activities...

[daveT]

For the record, I always do good in the early parts of a chess match, do something stupid, and tilt away my king. In poker, I never get mad.

Does anyone here consider themselves a master at both games, meaning that you could defeat at least half the competitive population at each game, which excludes amateurs, donkeys, etc.

The above person would be the most suitable for this question.
I doubt that it is more easy to learn either game.

[Montrealcorp]

well even though i reach the expert mark(master rank in chess takes too many tournament participation),im not that close in poker even tough i aint afraid of anybody...

i find i just do much better vs competition and easier to learn the poker concept then chess and most of all,the concept are far more easier to apply in poker then in chess...

last think the memorizATION IN POKER IS BY FAR less needed then the quantity need it in chess.ei: how many opening and ending u need to know by heart to be just good in chess is simply amazing....

just my 2cents of experience...

ps: i mean think about it,much harder to just learn how to play the gam eof chess(piece moves,rules etc.) then poker...

[daveT]

Well, okay, you say chess is harder, but you aren't good at poker, thus your understanding of the complexities of poker is elementary.

I notice that there are players who are pro who learned strategy while playing Magic: the Gathering. I don't know the game at all, and was bored the few times I tried to play it.

There are different skills needed for playing poker than chess. I am very good at Spades, Hearts, and Gin. This games require you to visualize what your opponents and partner is holding, although there are basic, simple to learn, strategies that must be learned first. I thought that this was basic in poker, but it seems to mystify several players. If you are not able to make very accurate assumptions about your opponents holdings, then you will never achieve the highest level of play.

In the same way, you would have to be able to not only know what your own optimal strategy in chess, but also make very accurate assumptions about how your opponent will react. This part would be easier in chess, because you are able to see how your opponent has played thus far.

Perhaps the knowledge base is larger in chess, but at the highest levels, chess would appear to be a far less emotional game.

To become good at poker, I had read about 10 books several times over, how many books do you need to read to become good at chess?

I am wondering how the foundation of each game compares.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Each chess move effects future chess moves much more so than is true for poker. Sure metagame is important, but each hand is not nearly as strategically coupled like it is in chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well technically, strategy is only important in chess because the moves have not all been calculated out. If they could be, then strategy wouldn't be important. It would be pure tactics.