Poker or Chess???

[sman]

I had an arguement with a friend about whether poker or chess is better at building one's intelligence and which is more active and stimulating for the mind in general. Could anyone shed some light on the subject as we have no real proof of either answer.

Thanks

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
I had an arguement with a friend about whether poker or chess is better at building one's intelligence and which is more active and stimulating for the mind in general. Could anyone shed some light on the subject as we have no real proof of either answer.

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know much about 'building intelligence,' but as someone that's spent years playing chess and a year and a half playing poker, I'd probably have to say that chess has helped in the mental department, but poker's taught me to read people. I can play a game of chess without looking at the board, and I know when people are lying to me; poker's given me more practical intelligence.

As for active, that's probably a toss up. Both are as active as you make it. I usually concentrate a lot more when playing chess, but I could easily see myself concentrating that much during a poker session.

As for stimulating, no question [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] It's poker. You can't win gigantic pots hitting a two-outer on the river in chess.

[Grisgra]

One thing about chess I always loathed was learning opening book. Not sure that anything is active, stimulating, or intelligence-building about learning a zillion different opening lines. Seeing why some work and some don't would be, sure, but there's enough rote memorization in there to bore just about anyone to tears.

[hmkpoker]

Depends on how you define intelligence, I suppose. Both are stimulating in unique ways.

[Metric]

My gut feeling is that chess is a better workout for developing your ability to handle (analyze and memorize) a large numbers of possible moves and strategies, but the disadvantage is that it can be rather boring for a lot of people -- there is not very much motivation to put forth the maximum effort and get the best workout. With poker (especially limit poker), there are fewer moves to analyze, the mathematical manipulations seem more straightforward, but the big advantage is that there is tremendous incentive to devote maximum mental effort to the game.

[TorpedoBreath]

Chess allows for more accountability for your actions. I feel more responsible for my losses and more proud of my wins. I don't need to hit a two-outer on the river to win (or have someone pull a two-outer on me to steal a win).

I love the math of poker and the money and social aspects make it way more attractive than chess. But chess is more beautiful in my mind.

Chess also teaches you more about resourcefulness and fighting spirit contrary to what I would think most NL Holdem/non-chess masters would think. Is this a fair statement?

[ubtleonflagrant]

I think chess as a game has more potential in stimulating the brain and improving one's intelligence. There is much less luck involved if any. But whatever you get more into will definetly stimulate your brain more. So it really just depends on the person.
Chess is really overrated in terms of being the brainiest games. There are only a finite number of moves and games possible, although very high this is nothing compared to many RTS video games. I wouldn't say every RTS video game has as much potential as Chess but well balanced games such as StarCraft are much deeper and require much more strategic thinking than chess.

[vulturesrow]

You are comparing an RTS to chess? Fact is most people quickly gravitate to doing the same things over and over in an RTS. The fact that there is a finite number of chess games is a strawman.

[yukoncpa]

I have a friend who struggles at poker and yet he is a chess master. I pride myself at being pretty good at chess. When I play my friend, he turns his back at me and calls out his moves. I then make my move and call to him in code what I've done (he plays me the equivalent of blindfolded). When I make my moves, he is always helpful to me, and explains to me the problems with my moves and where I could better move my pieces ( at all times, he has his back turned). Half way through games, he'll tell me a move to make for him and I'll explain that that move is impossible. We will review the moves, and to my chagrin, it will always turn out that I will have made a mistake in the chess code that he calls to me and will have moved his piece inadvertantly to the wrong position sometime in the play. MY mistake. My friend never becomes angry. He just asks me what the current board looks like. After I explain to him, he readjusts the picture in his mind to the current picture and then proceeds to beat me anyway. I have never beaten him, even though I can beat the vast majority of chess enthusiasts. This type of intellect astounds me. I will never be able to comprehend it.

[ubtleonflagrant]

An RTS like that would not be more strategic than chess, but in a balanced game like starcraft you can't get away with doing that, at least when you are playing against people that are good at the game.
In RTS games you also have to think faster, encouraging more efficient thinking and concentration. Of course you can also have a timer in chess, but in RTS the faster you adjust your strategy the more of an advantage you have.

The best player in the world, Kasparov, has basically memorized every possible move one can make in a game and plays accordingly, which is the same thing a computer does when it plays chess. When he rarely makes a wrong move he often realizes it right after and gets angry.
In starcraft there are many more factors you have to put into the game.

[ QUOTE ]
You are comparing an RTS to chess? Fact is most people quickly gravitate to doing the same things over and over in an RTS. The fact that there is a finite number of chess games is a strawman.

[/ QUOTE ]