ITT: people with experience in neither chess nor poker form differing opions based on sudden, wild speculation

Zaole wrote:

ITT: people with no experience in neither chess nor poker form differing opions based on sudden, wild speculation

As nerdy as it sounds, I've played in small school chess tournaments. I'm sure everyone here has participated in friendly poker games as well. Lummox has even stated he's been in a poker tournament himself.

The only person engaging in wild speculation is you, Zaole.

Checkers involves more skill than any other game ever.

More on topic though, luck (while ultimately being the deciding factor on some poker hands) does not necessarily mean poker takes less skill.

More specifically, lets look at the game Texas Hold'em. Yes, luck plays a part, but it's almost more of a game of statistics. Even if you're really good at it, it's to be expected that you'll lose a few hands (which is inherently different than chess). That doesn't mean you have less skill. In chess you don't have to weigh the odds on the move you're about to make. You don't have to hold back on a move because you don't know if it'll pay off. Granted, you could make some gambles when playing chess, but that's not really considered skill in chess.

Straight up poker is more luck and less statistics than Texas Hold'em, which is why you tend to see the pros playing TH instead of regular 5 card stud.

I'm voting for Chess. The only luck involved in a chess game is hoping your opponent doesn't see one specific move that could ruin your entire plan.

Seeing as I can't see the other peoples cards in a poker game, and am forced to resort to reading body language, which can be misleading, the value of luck in a poker game far outweighs that of a chess game.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

I think that skill is to chess is what money is to poker. The higher skilled player will invariably win at chess.

The player with the largest chip stack has got to be the favourite in poker as well. As long as they are at least competant at the game, they can pick and choose their bets better and "bully" players with lower stacks into submission.(Don't big name players start with bigger chip stacks in tournaments?)

I guess what i'm arguing is that while both games require skill, poker has a "limit", after that you just have to ride your luck.

Also, I suck at both equally so im not biased in any way.

Lummox JR wrote:

Stupot wrote:

Checkers involves more skill than any other game ever.

FAIL. Checkers is orders of magnitude less complex than chess, which is why game theorists have already managed to prove that in checkers it is always possible for two "perfect" players to play to stalemate. The same may or may not be true of chess, but if so it would require a player of far greater skill than either Kasparov or Deep Blue.

Umm, I guess that statement isn't as obviously sarcastic as I meant it to come across.

Jp:

How much chess have you played? You often have to make the choice between a safe but low-payoff move versus being a little aggressive but potentially leaving yourself open.

I've played enough chess to know that if you can foresee a move you can make that would leave yourself open, you wouldn't make that choice. In the game of chess, it's not about gambling on a risky move, it's about how far into the future (and all the different branches) you can see. If you have truly mastered chess, you don't gamble on moves that you hope you will pay off. You make calculated moves because you know the worst possible outcome.