poker vs chess (similarities)

[Juan Oro]

Since I started playing poker sometimes I heard players talking saying that poker and chess had something in common, but one depends a bit on luck and the other does not, both games need a mental ability and where it is also taken. the time for the player to make a decision, as well as in studying the opponents and their movements on the board.

In chess you are clearly seeing the movement of your opponent's pieces, but in poker you do not see the cards of your opponents until you show them if they want to do so in this case the poker player has to use his ability to try to deceive the another player and make believe that he has a better hand than his opponent, which we call bluff in order to try to win the hand.

The poker player has to decipher with intelligence and dexterity which cards his opponent carries, collect all the information since the hand began to develop and tell them about the other player if he is playing live.

 

[black and]

I think poker and chess are actually very similar. First of all, both chess and poker can be considered a sport. Both of these games require good skill, experience, patience and concentration. It is also obvious that both chess and poker develop the player's logic and tactics well. And last but not least, poker and chess are a really effective and useful exercise for developing the thinking of an adequate person.

 

[supernuts25]

They may have some similarities but poker had way to much luck involved to be on a chess level in my opinion.
Chess is great though

 

[Pokerstudy]

Poker is incomplete information under conditions of uncertainty.
Chess has complete information - all information is always present.

The only real similarities to me are thinking steps ahead during the game to be successful.

Also the reason why chess is not profitable is because there is no luck involved. Luck brings recreational players that spend money to potentially win with any two cards.

Chess you need complete skill and only skill.

If poker was a skill based game ‘only’ it would not be profitable. Skilled poker players never hope for luck, they are at war with luck. By the same regard they love bad beats because it ensures more players will try in the future which in the long term brings large profits of money. Poker is 80% skill and 20% luck. The 80% skill wins ‘long term’ against luck or bad beats or what have you, losing session, downswings. If skilled, you will come ahead. This is why I never understood why people get tilted or frustrated, luck will beat any and every player temporarily.

In chess if you are really skilled, you hardly ever lose.

Most of what I wrote is from Annie Duke, which I fully agree with it and makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Collin Moshman]

I think that Pokerstudy's point is the most important difference -- poker being a game of incomplete info whereas chess is a game of perfect information.

But both require study; strategy; not tilting when things aren't going well; and adjusting to your opponents' tendencies. So for sure a lot of similarities which is why I think you see a lot of crossover among poker and chess talent.

 

[FoxMS]

Chess is a game that allows the player to develop his tactical and strategic skills, so in my opinion chess and poker are very similar. But you don't have to be able to play chess to be a successful poker player.

 

[Juan Oro]

Poker is incomplete information under conditions of uncertainty.
Chess has complete information - all information is always present.

The only real similarities to me are thinking steps ahead during the game to be successful.

Also the reason why chess is not profitable is because there is no luck involved. Luck brings recreational players that spend money to potentially win with any two cards.

Chess you need complete skill and only skill.

If poker was a skill based game ‘only’ it would not be profitable. Skilled poker players never hope for luck, they are at war with luck. By the same regard they love bad beats because it ensures more players will try in the future which in the long term brings large profits of money. Poker is 80% skill and 20% luck. The 80% skill wins ‘long term’ against luck or bad beats or what have you, losing session, downswings. If skilled, you will come ahead. This is why I never understood why people get tilted or frustrated, luck will beat any and every player temporarily.

In chess if you are really skilled, you hardly ever lose.

Most of what I wrote is from Annie Duke, which I fully agree with it and makes perfect sense to me.

Very objective and very complete your answers and thank you for sharing the knowledge and vision of the great player Annie Duke

 

[Juan Oro]

I think that Pokerstudy's point is the most important difference: poker is a game of incomplete information while chess is a game of perfect information.

But both require study; strategy; don't give in when things don't go well; and adapt to the tendencies of your opponents. Sure there are a lot of similarities, so I think you see a lot of crossovers between the talent of poker and chess.

in conclusion: "chess is knowledge, poker is art and wisdom"

 

[Rob Hobson]

The only similarity is the fact that both are mental games. Although the two need a good strategy for a good game, in chess there's no space for luck i.e. only skill counts.