Poker or Chess

[redhouse]

So I just got done with a borderline violent argument about this.

Which is harder - HU poker or chess?

I said chess in a landslide. Am I underestimating poker?

[Cactus Jack]

I think you're underestimating the luck factor. There is no luck in chess. If you're Kasparov, even a computer can't beat you. If you're me, it will every time. But, no computer can beat a human at poker. It can make the right mathmatical decision, but cannot control the outcome of the cards. If you're a 4:1 dog, you still catch the card that wins 25% of the time. I've lost to one out on the river. That's not ever going to happen in chess. Seems pretty simple to me. Or did you mean chess is harder to master?

CJ

[NorthView]

Yep, it depends what you mean by "harder". If I had to choose one or the other to play for my life against the best in the world, I'd obviously choose HU because at least I'd have a chance.

At chess, as an ok club-level player I once played an IM and even in one of my favourite openings, after my "book" knowledge ran out at about move 12 I never had a chance. It was HORRIBLE.

[GodlikeRoy]

Chess is a lot about memory rather than intelligence, since the game has been played and analyzed in depth for so many years, all the optima openings and plays have been mapped out and whoever can remember then the furthest has the best chance to win. There is a little bit of strategy in chess in that you'll come across situations you can't have memorized and it'll take skill and intelligence to discover the best path of action in time, but poker is a lot more about intelligence and reading people, seeing the signs, going with your gut etc... so it's hard to say which is "harder", they're... different.

[excession]

[k3nt]

I would say chess in a landslide, also .... but then I stopped to think.

Say chess games were available online. (Actually, I think they are.) But say that there were 2-3 million people online playing chess, or however many people online play poker.
The average player online would probably be pretty bad, and beating most of them would probably be no harder than beating the $50 NL games at poker. You would have to study and work at it, just like we do around here, but it might be about the same.

Add a few dozen million more playing chess in casinos, but only a few times per year. Again, with a little study you would crush the live games even more than the online games.

But maybe I'm using a different definition of "hard" than you are.

Certainly if I had to bet my life that I could either beat Daniel Negreanu at poker or Garry Kasparov at chess, I would take my chances with Danny.

[Kuso]

the real question is whether go/igo/baduk/weiqi (different languages) is more difficult than poker.

go has both strategic and tactical aspects, yet it is a game based on complete information. you can "play your opponents hand" by making moves that they don't know how to take advantage of, but it is still largely a complete information game, while poker is not.

the best go program is still considered a "beginner". it can hold it's own against someone who has learned the game for less than a year (7kyu) -- if the opponent doesn't know that he's playing a computer. if the opponent does know he's playing against a computer, the rank tends to drop down to similar to the level of someone who has been playing 3-6 months (13 kyu or so). the reason is that it is easy to fool a computer by making confusing suboptimal plays in the opening. the computer is quite good in local tactical moves, but is completely terrible with global strategic moves.

for those who don't know go, it can roughly (and i mean very roughly) be compared to fischer's version of chess in which the first rank pieces are randomized (or in one variation i've heard of, you get to place the pieces one at a time alternately). the permutations in go and this version of chess are so varied that very little can really be effectively memorized -- you have to start dealing with the application of abstract concepts in order to be a winning player.


anyway, back to your original question. i think the skill sets are very different. you could never be the best chess player in the world without being insanely smart. i think chess players tend to need large amounts of "processing power" (to use the computer term). poker players, while they need to have a fair bit of intelligence at the top level (definitely "above average"), i think that it is more important that they be able to understand the psychology of their opponents and how that psychology is manifested in their opponents' play. this is as much an art as a science. while this skill might be useful in chess, i think that it's imperative to have this ability in the upper echelons of the poker world.

interesting topic.


[edited for spelling]

[Molina]

[Kuso]

the site of the american go association has a lot of good materials and links:




the UK organization is also good:




here is the rules page from the aga site:




this is by far the best introduction to go online that i've seen (listed on aga rules page):




be warned, it's addictive.

[laynegt]

comparing go to chess in computer-player terms is a bit unfair. the go board is so much bigger.

i don't think anyone can seriously argue poker is harder than chess. at poker you can reach a playable level very quickly. the best players in the world are not that much better than the avg player on this board.

chess, on the other hand, is pretty much impossible. if you're not a genius, you have to put in years of work to compete at a respectable level (i.e. not hanging pieces in every game). GMs are so above the avg amateur player it's depressing.

i think my main point would be that poker and chess are really like apples and oranges. they're different games. poker players like to dismiss chess as being a game of "perfect information", and therefore not as interesting. meanwhile chess players dismiss poker as being a giant luck-fest. let there be peace between poker nerds and chess nerds.

[redhouse]

I agree that the comparison is unfair, as most of you have pointed out.

But as for chess being a game of complete information, I can vouch for the fact that the "does he think that I think that he thinks I think I know what he's doing" game is a part of chess as well. Good chess, that is.

[Kuso]

[JDLush]

It's very odd how most good chess players are good (or at least decent) poker players, and vice versa. Same for backgammon I guess. They are all 'math' games, so I guess that makes sense.

My son is in the 4th grade and has been playing in his elementary school's chess club since Kindergarten. By 2nd grade he was the top ranked kid in the school, regularly beating all the 4th and 5th graders. This year they started taking trips to other schools in the district, mainly so that he would have someone to give him a challenge (he still beat everyone). They even brought in a guy from Germany that is friends with the chess club organizer. He played 20 games at once against all the kids and only one beat him. Guess who that was?

James has been playing poker for a few years now as well and definitely has the knack for it, when he doesn't go ultra lag (which is 90% of the time). He can read an omaha board faster than me sometimes too. But the interesting thing happened when we got a backgammon board for xmas. He was playing it like a champ after about the 3rd game, and now likes it as much as chess (if not more).

His reading/writing scores in school are a little above average, but not spectacular. His math scores are off the charts tho. According to the chess lady, the same goes for all the better chess players in the school. So if you have a kid that is good at math, teach 'em chess, backgammon, and poker!

[AlexMR]

[JDLush]