not really possible to compare skill in 2 games as different as chess and poker. chess is strategy, logic, calculation, positional awareness. poker is probability and psychology. apples and oranges.
chess is only a game of reading each others next mooves and in poker no mather if you can read your oponents next mooves/minds you can never controling what shows up on next card if you dont cheat so obviousley chess is a clean game and poker is about odds and percentage and controling your money management..
in poker the broke player can being better than the poker multimillionaire doesnt this tell something? no mather money in poker the luck has to big influence..
The skill cap for Chess is far higher than Poker. You don' get lucky in Chess. You just don't (unless your opponent does something completely stupid which could also happen in poker). Poker, though mostly skill, does have the luck factor involved. In chess, you can outplay your opponent the entire game and make all of the right moves and you WILL win (assuming you don't fuck it up). In poker you can make all of the right moves and lose because lady luck decided to piss on you on the river card.
I can respect both games and are disciplines on their own, but they have a completely different flavor.In Chess,the information is complete, but extremely vast in terms of possibilities (limitless?).In poker the information is somewhat incomplete but the human is guided by general (and not so general) rules of thumb to guide them in their decisions. Chess computers can beat the best humans, however, a computer that can beat the best humans in poker still eludes.
The thing with poker is it's the luck element that makes it exciting - you have to play to avoid that luck or to ensure your opponents get plenty of the bad kind.
And yes, poker is more psychological game. Just I personally don't like that all in all it comes to blind luck. But it's just my opinion, who likes to rule situation 100 percent by his own skills no matter what they are, and be responsible for his good or bad choices and not be glad that, for example, fifth or fourth card made combination which posibilty is 10 percent. By the way, very good comments of yours, thank you for explaining differences between poker and chess computers
Well, I mentioned chess as mix of art, science and fight to show that chess is not a game consisting only of logic, theory deduction knowledge, it consists of imagination (which, of course, has strong relationship with decuction), that it consist not only from moves, written in the book, that it also consists of psychological games, despite the fact that it's, like you said, it is rather logical game. All of this mixture and not only logic, theory is because of human factor.
Actually poker is much more intellectually stimulating than chess. Being good chess does not mean you are good at ANYTHING ELSE AT ALL. Kasparov and Fischer are two good examples of that. If you are a skilled poker player you would be sure to also be a math genius. A chess GM might me terrible at math and still play chess very well.
@PeterRoeder31 You couldn't be more wrong. First of all, you can be terrible at maths and still be a very good poker player. You don't need any mathematical skills for poker. Unless you believe that being able to divide by 50, or to memorize some percentages does have to do with maths (it doesn't). It is true that analytical thinking, the ability to concentrate on something very long, seeing patterns, being able to think outside the box helps in poker, but in chess it helps more.
@csarmii Math doesn't have anything to do with numbers? That would be like saying philosophy has nothing to do with language. You are not making any sense. I'm 35 (almost 36) and been a chess master since I was 15. If I had discovered poker at age 10 there is no doubt my math skills would have been much better. Being into chess, poker and backgammon, I speak from personal experience. I really don't care about being "right" or "wrong" about this. To me poker is very interesting math.
@PeterRoeder31 I do make sense and your post proves it. Let's just say that math has nothing more to do with numbers than philosophy with languages. Numbers (language) are very necessary (and basic) tools in these cases. But both go for beyond. I have a maths degree and I can assure you that in the university I rarely used numbers at all.
@PeterRoeder31 You are probably an idiot who cant tell a knight from a bishop. A good poker player may be good at basic maths but will lack intelligence to calculate dimensions / piece variables and strategies into the chess game. Poker is a casino game – calculate/ intimidate/risk/bluff/hope/ and pray for a win! Chess is about the intelligent game itself and therefore produces the true geniuses of our time. That the 2 are even being compared says more about the time we are living in.
@braller1 Lol, you are such an idiot. I have played a chess world championship. And I am a very strong Poker and Backgammon player also. I don't know why I am even wasting my time talking about this with you. You don't even realize what computers have done to chess. Chess is a game of full information and therefore computers rule the game. In Poker, however, one can actually play better than a computer.
@PeterRoeder31 I dont know why you bring your computer into the debate. If you read my argument instead of boasting how good you are at Yahtzee then you'd understand my point is that poker is intellectually inferior to the game of chess. Sure I believe you can beat your computer playing poker because the luck element is huge so well done! you got lucky on the turn? And sorry, playing Chess World Championship on your PC does not mean you actually played in it even if it says FIDE on the box :)
@braller1 A REAL world championship, asshole. Tjeck my chess videos here. For example the one called "My Team Chess Game". You can verify my identity. My peak elo is 2275. In 1992 I played junior-VM in Duisburg. My current elo is 2109. You are such an idiot. You think chess is great? I have lots of GM friends whose life is ruined by chess. Poker is much more interesting. If you want to insult me talk about my lack of poker skills.
@PeterRoeder31 So you basically reached a peak at chess 20 years ago, desperately want to brag about nothing meaningful and are frustrated you are stuck with all the other 2100 raters. Big deal. You dont have any expertise to justify the comparison of a casino game you feel more at ease with, to a 1500 year old boardgame that leaves you frustrated. Maybe the GMs you know have had other problems, chess is not a hard drug it does not kill but simply has many more dimensions than a deck of cards.
@braller1 I can still become an FM. Besides that, if you don't want to talk about the impact of computers on chess, who are those "great minds of our time" among chess players. Magnus Carlsen sure. But other than him there can be no doubt Tom Dwan is more interesting than any other top chess player today. Otherwise mention some. Anand? Ivanchuk? Short? Adams? The list could go on and on and one gets bored just thinking about these people.
@PeterRoeder31 Listen -I dont care if you don't find the great GMs personalities interesting or not. The world top 10 chess players are intellectually in a different league than top poker players who only have to calculate whats in a deck of cards. The only poker player I like is Rainman ok. It should not be compared end of.
@braller1 Chess is much more attractive to people with Asbergers syndrome. I see you've just admitted that you don't care about the top 10 chess players today since you don't even bother to mention any names. Name one other than Magnus Carlsen. And it has to be an active player.
Chess is much more attractive to people with Asberger syndrome? Prove it if you are so smart.
Chess also demands psychological fight, it became known since Lasker times. In those times people thought that chess is like mathematical game, there calculation is everything. It was Lasker who understood that it's fight between personalities, And he knew that calm player finds hard to do moves which are sharp and "sharp" people will try to find beautiful combination instead of
playing strategical variations.Example for calm player let's say Botvinik or Petrosian, agressive player Tal. And indeed - their playing style reflects their personalities. So you also have to know that sixth sense - maybe not so strong but still you must know what style player is and know how, in psychological terms, he is strong. The reason why in poker that sixth sense is more important is because of luck possabilities, which are stronger than in chess. Other than that, it's
pretty the same because in both games you should know what other person is used to think, feel and what strategy is used to develope. And I don't know how about you, but I don't think that poker should be considered better game just because of bigger luck factor. And you will be right by saying that in poker you need stronger sixth sense, bigger psychology knowledge but it is because poker all it has - sixth sense, psychology and luck. Chess is more complex game
because it has not only psichology, sixth sense (by watching his oponnent's body language decide risk or try to ply in your style which again would be riddle for opponnents psychological knoledge), it also has calculation(ok, poker also has calculation but not as hard), theory. It's a mix between those things, so it has more other aspects than poker. Of course, I don't say that chess is better in general, couse it is matter of taste. Just saying differences and numbers of aspects
@MetalScull Chess doesn't really have strong psychological aspects. Different players have different styles but ultimately you make your decisions based on pure logic. You certainly don't factor in risk or body language. The difference can best be explained in the difference a professional would play against a beginner. In poker the professional would revert to a basic style with minimal bluffing and no fancy plays. In chess, on the other hand, the professional would play the same way.
If minimal bluffing, not taking risk would not help, professional would start to play like he always played. Otherwise he would loose all his money (unless luck will help). In other words, in poker you cannot play like in the same style if you keep being beaten. You also have to watch opponent's movements and react to them - not necessary in the same way. In chess - yes, you have to know theory but it's player's choice in what way use that logic. Everyone has strength and
@MetalScull The reason a professional poker player bluffs minimally against beginners is that they tend to overvalue their hands and call way too much. This makes it more profitable to tighten up and exploit their style. Trying to bluff against beginners is much more difficult because they do not understand plays and find it much more difficult to fold their hands. And the professional can keep playing in that style because beginners are much less likely to adapt to it.
weaknesses and you obviously try to win using your advantages. For example, pure logic says that you have to rule board's center but how to do that? Some will try to create situation then rooks are main figures, some will do that with bishops, some will try to get rid of all figures as soon as possible because they are professionals in ending with only pawns (that means that even fight to center isn't so important since goal is to make pawn into stronger figure. By knowing your
@MetalScull I think we differ on our definitions of the word 'logic'. I think you understand the word as 'theory' whereas my definition is closer to the word 'deduction'. As a result I don't think that it can be compared to writing or letters in the way you have suggested. Of course, you might adopt a particular style depending on the opponent's level of aggression (that might determine which opening you use) but your decisions should not be motivated by risk or psychological factors.
It still depends how good you know your opponent, how good you know his weaknesses. In chess there are literal billions and billions possabilities how can you go, by deduction you choose which you want to take. It's you, who decide what goals you want to achieve first and what last and it is influenced by your opponent's move. Yes, you can try to attack some weak squares but the thing is what minuses of your position are. By knowing what your opponent is able to do you can either
take attention to defense or you can attack even more. Playing in cold theory, deduction way is very dangerous because human is not a computer. When you are playing against the computer, it's different story, unless you can see it's weaknesses in other games and do the risk (which in this case may be logical thing since compu possibilities wehich isn't influenced by luck (at least most of the time) - that what makes chess the game of theory, deduction and psichology together.
Sorry, haven't written full thought about computer.
So, risk against computer based on his weaknesses may be even very logical move since it is already programmed what to do. Of course, it's enormously hard to see today computer's issues.
What I want to say, that the game can not be based only on risk, psychological factors (even magician Tal didn't do that) but chess without any of these things would be only science which is not.
@MetalScull Some rather strange things have come up in your argument. I am not sure about the ways in which science, art and fight are relevant to a discussion about chess. It is certainly interesting that you bring up computers in the argument though, because that tells a lot about the differences in the games.
At present, computers that play these games rely entirely on deduction. The difference between the computers that play the games is the data that they deduct. In chess, the computer
@MetalScull will look only at the current position for its premise, will consider all of the logical possibilities from such a position and will then select the best situation. This train of thought precisely replicates the thinking process of a professional chess player. The thing to note is that the only input data the computer requires is an initial position. The computer does not consider the opponent's tendencies or the risk of the opponent spotting the weaknesses in each move.
@MetalScull This might be contrasted with the way a (good) poker computer operates. A poker computer requires many more data inputs than the chess one and that is part of the reason that they have not had any success at the upper echelons of the game (unlike Deep Blue in chess). The poker computer needs inputs on how tight and aggressive the opponent is. How likely he is to bluff, 3-bet, 4-bet, donk bet, overbet, etc. Based on such data the computer will produce a list of the opponent's most
@MetalScull likely hands; giving each hand a percentage degree of likelihood. The computer must then consider its own possibilities as they match up against the opponent's cards and tendencies. He should consider how likely the opponent is to fold to a bet (at each different size of the bet) and that might determine how much the computer should bluff / value bet for. The computer should consider the opponent's image of the computer (i.e. if the computer has a tight image a bluff will be easier).
@MetalScull The computers might also consider the length of delay that the opponent took before betting / checking for that might be a tell.
There are a vast number more variables in poker that I might have mentioned but I think I have provided enough to show the fundamental distinction between the two games. The best computers in the games are ones that replicate the human train of thought. In poker a computer makes every decision based upon heavy analysis of the opponent's tendencies.
@MetalScull In chess, on the other hand, no such analysis of the opponent is necessary (the only piece of information required is the current board position). The difference in input variables required shows that chess is a strictly logical game as opposed to poker which is heavily psychological. It is for this very reason that it is so much more difficult to design a top poker computer; for there are so many more variables to consider.
@toby0cooper wrong, input such as whether a player has been beaten using a certain variation earlier in the day or tournament may result in a different game entirely. A player's tendencies are also largely psychological. Just like a poker player going all in on "lucky" cards, a chess player may play a gambit that they perchance have had success with
@Shadowboost I am talking about the way that a chess computer works. The computer does not factor in which variations (do you mean openings?) an opponent has previously won or lost with (and given the vast number of variations they would probably be out of the computer's data range).
Referring to "lucky" cards and whether a player lost with a certain opening earlier that day is really referring to the weaker players. Professionals do not operate in such a way. That is either the result of tilt
@Shadowboost or a lack of experience. Even if Chris Ferguson won 100 times out of 100 with 72o you wouldn't see him ever willingly call all in with it preflop (unless he had terrific pot odds) because the professional understands that in the long run such cards have a negative EV.
Now a chess player's tendencies may have a psychological basis. But that factor would not affect the way in which a chess computer would operate for there will always be only one correct move in any situation.
@toby0cooper depending on how you feel about determinism, you could argue that in poker there is only ever one correct play in any situation also. Granted it is argueably much more difficult to create a machine that is able to find that correct play in poker than it is in chess, being more based on psychology than algorithms. but it is still true that for an omniscient being there would only be one correct play in any poker situation.
@rodneystar Yes, and here lies the difference. The correct play in chess would be the same against every single opponent. The correct play in poker would (with obvious exceptions aside - like calling all in with AA HU preflop) be different for every opponent. Both computers find one move to be optimal, just that in poker that move is determined by the psychological characteristics of the opponent.
opponent's style you decide how to make his life of chess unpleasant.You won't fight positional chess if your opponent crushes everyone in such style. Logic is like letters. you can know them very well but it doesn't mean that you know how to read (what intonations you have to use, then do pause and then don't, how to speak about situation to show it's atmosphere persuasively and etc. In mind you know what you wanna say but it doesn't work then you open your mouth. Once I read my
poetry to a group of people. In my mind I knew what I wanna say, I knew how it should be read but it was awful then I actually did that.
On the other hand, you can read book very good and other can do that as good but you both do that very differently. It's matter of interpretation and audience. Logic can be compared to writing: there is theory how to do that but it's your decision what story will it be, in what way you will develope it, how should look main characters and etc.
People like Kim Peek and Daniel Tammet would not do well in Holdem since you have to have an emotional feel for the game, like a sixth sense, and an ability to move all-in, refuse an all-in, etc.
@PeterRoeder31 you are doing nothing positive at all for either game by talking like that. please do not sprout crap about magic senses and emotional 'feel'. The ability to discern other peoples emotions from their actions, and the ability to mask or control the projection of your own is a valuable skill in poker yes, but it's not magic. great players' decisions are calculated, precise, based on careful thought and skill. not magic.
actually you are the dummy: I used to ask the very question to any number of top level gms in my travels, and to a man they all said that often they had no notion of what they were doing, and that goes for, when I say top level, Spassky when I was in Europe not long after his second defeat, Larsen, a very bright amiable fellow and many many more. But you go right on feeling you have it all figured out, old sport and we will see where you finish on the cross tables.
anyone who feels there is no luck in chess ...has never played the game much. With such complexity it is usual just plain, luck that you chose the right next few moves, luck that he doesnt take you into something unprepared, just for starters. Overall
it evens out, just as in poker, backgammon or any game, but hate to break the news, it might even be possible there is MORE luck in chess than poker. At the highest level you
often hear the greats saying I didnt know at ALL what I was doing.
@doctornoooo Chess is by definition a game with NO luck. By its very nature, being a "complete information" game, there are no hidden variables. I think it's you who don't understand much about chess, that's obvious.
Btw I'm an active tournament player next to master level, so I know what I'm talking about.
@ArtinArt in fact you have descended to the banal level of common consensus, elevating the skills of chess over those of poker: Lasker in his own way was THE master poker player, as was Tal, complicating things till neither knew what they were doing, with each simply being better tactically. Their LUCK being they were better players. But if it makes you feel better trumpeting your homilies, there are online sites you and I could play for some real bread. Be glad to.
@doctornoooo Lasker was mostly considered a pragmatic player, not a tactical genius. Tal was THE tactical genius. Was he lucky being a genius? There's NO luck in chess, poker does have it. It's a mathematical fact not an opinion, get over it. Obviously a good poker player will predict variables better, working with what he has. Maybe if I beat you ten times in a row you could understand the difference between luck and skills in chess. What site? Chesscube, ICC, FICS ... pick one.
@ArtinArt now you really went so stupid on me that I will leave you to your delusions To say that Lasker was not a master of tactics shows it. At this point I realize I am talking to a very very stupid guy. Probably a chess nerd to boot. Adios, Tonto.
@ArtinArt here dummy, just to show you how stupid your are Or maybe you dont even know just how good Fine was.
As I pored over the games of the great masters, two styles appealed to me above all others: Lasker and Steinitz. In Lasker I saw, above all, the supreme tactical genius . And in Steinitz I saw the master of consistency;. – Reuben Fine
@doctornoooo I said he was mostly considered pragmatic, not that he wasn't a very good tactician. He's renowed for great defensive skills and pragmatism, end. Is this your pathetic plan to escape the chess match that YOU have suggested? How coward. Come on, pick up an online chess site, coward. Otherwise shut the fuck up, cowards don't have the right to an opinion. Are you scared little baby?
@doctornoooo you are not talking about the nature of the game, you are talking about the relative ineptitude of the players. just because i can't hit a penny at 100m with a sniper rifle, doesnt mean the gun is inaccurate.
@850iStyle Yes there is! Of course there's luck in poker, that's what makes it interesting. Why do you think there's bankroll management?? So that you won't bust when the card doesn't swing your way. You could be the best poker player ever, but if you keep getting 27o, you will never win anything.
Good players will have the edge due to their skills and 99% will be making a profit in the long run, but anything can happen in short term. Why do you think there's something called bad beat?
Basic skills is all you need, Hope that you make the wrong play at the right time.Then you win. I play good players comes down to lucK, Now total amateurs thats different
and again...Poker World Champion vs noob, the chance is 50%-50%
Chess Champion vs noob, the chance is 100%-0%
If u play chess until somepoint u will realize that what Garry Kasparov said is true that chess is 'Mental Torture'...Poker is highly rated because it play money.
@nataschmidtt you are wrong bud... all though poker might have some luck to do with it, its a game of deception and the best cards dont always win the pot... if it was 50/50 why do you always see the same players at the final tables?
@nataschmidtt Uhhhh.. While the card display is random, the actual skill comes in reading players, making proper bets, making proper calls, thus making it a skill game. Lottery is luck, poker is controlled by the players involved.
youre kidding right? does this also apply to online where reading players is not possible?
the "best" poker player in the word (if there is such a thing) control the other players, read other players and make proper bets, therefore nullify any advantage. so whats involved after that?.............yep, you guessed it, luck.
@johnnytheprick I don't joke about poker. See, the problem is, you seem to put the game in a category where every hand is played all in, every hand. In THAT case, yes, it's ALL luck. As I was pointing out, the SIMPLE FACT that you can FOLD (which takes skill), makes it a skill game. You're also assuming that every player you play against is the best player in the world, which also isn't true. The mere fact that you say anything opposing me suggests you don't win a lot.
"you seem to put the game in a category where every hand is played all in, every hand".......where did i write that? if anything, youre the one assuming.
"the SIMPLE FACT that you can FOLD (which takes skill), makes it a skill game"......im going to let re-read that before commenting.
and now for my favourite:"You're also assuming that every player you play against is the best player in the world, which also isn't true."..... TBC
"You're also assuming that every player you play against is the best player in the world, which also isn't true." - i left out one word which changes the whole meaning, the word being "If". "If" we gather the best players in the world, taking into account their reading, "folding" and betting skills, none of them would have an advantage.
"The mere fact that you say anything opposing me suggests you don't win a lot." - how many wsop titles have you won?
@johnnytheprick '"If" we gather the best players in the world' - I disagree, if you watch High Stakes Poker, some of the best players in the world play there, and I'd say that's a pretty skill filled table.
"how many wsop titles have you won?" - I'm 0 for 0 in WSOP Events. I find it funny that you opt to define winning poker by asking how many WSOP Titles I've won, like that's the strict criteria for a winning poker player.
@fundslender so you are saying that it's a complete coincidence that the same players are at the final tables out of hundreds of thousands of entries at the same tournaments year in, year out?
@rodneystar No, I'm saying that it's complete SKILL that's causing that. I suppose you must have misread, or just cherry picked what I said. There's not hundreds of thousands of players.
@nataschmidtt You officially know nothing about poker, do you think lady luck is just horny as fuck for the professionals and constantly gives em BJs under the table when they're playing against ameteurs? poker is at least 60% skill for those guys
@nataschmidtt they had more luck then the others? is that your statement? wow you are indeed an idiot. if you know the game at all you will see alot of good hands beaten by shit because of the way they played it. this is like arguing with a wall.
@nataschmidtt right man. yes, of course there is some variance in poker, and none in chess, but to say that poker is 50 -50 with an experienced player against a noob shows that you have either not played the game properly or are just an idiot (which i do not expect from someone so passionate about chess).... play me heads up over a number of games and we'll see whether its 50-50....
@johnsav14 nah..i still believe the chance is still 50-50..it's only about guessing whether u have a better card or not, sometimes u right, sometimes u fail..that's it
@nataschmidtt Do your homework before commenting.. If we're playing heads up, and you're dealt AA, and I'm dealt 72o. That is NOT 50/50. Your chance of winning is 88.74% over the course of millions of hands, which, last I checked, was a pretty good sample size.
@nataschmidtt Please keep an open mind about poker, none of us are saying that chess is stupid, so why can't you open yourself to reason, and try to understand poker.
What you misunderstood is, poker is not just about guessing your opponent's card, it is about bet sizing, probabilities, and understanding your opponent's tendency, habits and tellls. The better players can win more when they have a winning hand and lose less when they lost a hand, as simple as that.
yes this is stupid comparison. An experienced poker player can be beaten anytime by a noob, meanwhile, there's no way I can be beaten by a beginner or 1700 rating player at chess...btw why is the "should be the top comment" comment marked as spam? Agreed poker is 99% luck and 1% alcohol ...LoL...
LOL I play both, and I think the comparison is laughable. Chess is the most complex game of all time, the geniuses who succeed at them have incredibly high IQs.... poker players...well, just look at Hellmouth, lol.
@IndigentiaSumEgo Go is more complex than Chess in my opinion, Just ask any computer programmer and they would agree. Go is still light years away from being cracked by any AI, as for poker, no AI has been able to beat the best players in a consistent basis.
In the first place Chess and Poker utilizes a totally different set of skills, True there's less than 0.01% luck in chess, but no other game combines psychology and mathematical analysis like poker does.
poker requires so many diffrent skills in compariosn,,u need balls, the ability to react to diffrent player,,recognise betting patterns, etc. the game poker is a simple in comparison to chess,anyone can play, but it takes years to master and in the long run the better player is always going to win, so therefore not gambling
LOL Chess vs Poker. Chess is PURE skill and knowledge. Poker is massively psychological. So this is a silly comparison. Besides, Chess is much more elegant :)
@bbkingzor Yeah. Compared to chess, poker is riddled with luck. Chess is all mathematics, you can't really bluff or hide your motives, and the only luck you're gonna face is the off chance that your opponent doesn't see, realize or know what you are doing.
@Devilsnightforlife I don't see much math involved in chess, to be honest. It's a game of strategy and problem solving, and not much number crunching is required, unless you're a Chess AI programmer. I could be wrong, though.
Poker in the other hand, is what I call a unique combination of math and psychology. psychology part is obvious, but the math of poker, the skill to calculate probs, odds, implied odds, expectation, all of them on the fly is what gave guys like Chris Ferguson, an edge.
Chess requires 100x more skill to be the best. Poker can be mastered in 2-3 years thats why there are so many good players. And yes I play a lot of poker and admit this
is this serisously? comparing chess with poker? chess is 100% skill and intelligence. Poker is 0,1% skill 90% luck, and 9,9% alcohol. Poker is all about guessing. Guessing whether u have better cards than ur opponent or not. Thats it, but a little bit too harsh to say poker is 100% luck.
People saying poker is takes more skill are retarded. I play competition standard in both and to be fair, anyone can play poker it is just 80% probability for example...I have NEVER lost a competition game of chess to people who are new to the game. but have lost poker tournaments from calling all-ins from first timers who got lucky a fair few times...
"Poker is a game of chance and with probability there is always a % you will lose....but with chess its ALL on you"
@tiehut you're right,in long term skill is the significant factor.
Still chess depends entirely on you, poker doesn't.
I just finished in third place in a sit and go today.We both went all in before the flop.I had Aces , he had Jacks.In the long run I'll probably win 80 &% of the time.But the thing is I didn't win today.
Imagine if that happened to a good player at the WSOP main event in the first round .Skill wise he could have won it . But bad luck prevented him .
@bogdychamp the point is that if poker was easy to master, you would be a millionaire right now. anyone who masters poker becomes a millionaire by winning MOST of the time.
@tiehut LMFAO!!!!. Not even in the vicinity of being as close. I'm almost a titled player at chess, and chess is way more difficult than poker. I play poker a lot at our casino down here.
@myst93 have you won millions of dollars playing poker? if not, then you have not mastered the game of poker. if it were so easy, you would be a millionaire by now, you idiot.
@tiehut Shut the fuck up moron, you have no idea what you're talking about. You can play perfect poker and still lose your ass. Stupid piece of shit, don't argue with me when you're 100% wrong yourself. Dumbass. No noob is beating me at chess ever, but they sure can at poker. Now fuck off.
@myst93 You are right a noob can beat your ass at poker...cuz your a noob...if I play deepstack cash game with noobs, there is just NO WAY i can loose...NOT IN A MILLION YEARS!
@myst93 you are a fucking idiot. poker is not blackjack. poker is not roulette. poker is a SKILL game. over long periods of time, poker masters PROFIT. you are too stupid to understand this. poker masters lose some of the time, but win MOST of the time. tom dawn is a poker master. he is not lucky. he is skilled.
@myst93 it is IMPOSSIBLE to "lose your ass" when playing perfect poker, because perfect poker includes proper BANKROLL MANAGEMENT. a poker pro NEVER risks his whole bankroll in one poker game. you are too stupid to understand this concept.
@tiehut I didnt tell you to talk you fucking piece of shit dog. No matter whether you have 5% of your br on the table or not, you can still lose. Fuckin scumbag, you have no idea what you're talking about you fucking idiot. Fuck off. Asshole. Heads up, 2k each any day you piece of dog shit. Youre too stupid to understand any of this, so go jump off a bridge and do the world a good deed. Fucking prick asshole.
@bogdychamp Because you are an idiot....you can loose a pot to an amateur when the outdraw on you or stuff like that, but in a deepstack game if you get ALL your chips eaten up by a beginner, then you need to learn how to play poker correctly cuz that just doesn't happen...EVER
Chess is a deterministic, with no secret knowledge. Poker is the opposite. Both obviously require skill, as there are people that consistently do well. I'd say poker has more high highs, and low lows, due to the fact of having probability is a factor and the you are not always in control. Anyone else get here because you searched Blindfolded chess?
I like chess better but poker is fun to, though, I don't think I'll ever gamble.
Majorchessfan 1 day ago
comparing a poker player to a chess player is like comparing an apple to a piece of dog shit.
DuxvsPaco 2 days ago
not really possible to compare skill in 2 games as different as chess and poker. chess is strategy, logic, calculation, positional awareness. poker is probability and psychology. apples and oranges.
dm9910 4 days ago
poker is luck
sadlonelylad 4 days ago
1) You dont risk ur own money.Try to take your savings like 10k$ and start playing Poker.I bet that u would be very nervous etc
2)You have very important psychology like tells,what do i have , what my opponent has,what he thinks what i have
3)You are playing vs 9 guys max at 1 table,u must remember every hand they play,every move,how do they toss chips
4)The best players need around 30mins to describe 1 hand.You have 60s to make a decision.
Both games are very skillfull so stop talking bullshit.
gex221 5 days ago
Chess is logical and poker is psychological. As in you need to have brains and a bit of crazy to win :D
nioor 6 days ago
garbage
ll1lI 1 week ago
why all the dislikes?
A1B2C3D4E5m 1 week ago
chess is only a game of reading each others next mooves and in poker no mather if you can read your oponents next mooves/minds you can never controling what shows up on next card if you dont cheat so obviousley chess is a clean game and poker is about odds and percentage and controling your money management..
in poker the broke player can being better than the poker multimillionaire doesnt this tell something? no mather money in poker the luck has to big influence..
southeast21 1 week ago
The skill cap for Chess is far higher than Poker. You don' get lucky in Chess. You just don't (unless your opponent does something completely stupid which could also happen in poker). Poker, though mostly skill, does have the luck factor involved. In chess, you can outplay your opponent the entire game and make all of the right moves and you WILL win (assuming you don't fuck it up). In poker you can make all of the right moves and lose because lady luck decided to piss on you on the river card.
PepDrumLow 1 week ago 7
I can respect both games and are disciplines on their own, but they have a completely different flavor.In Chess,the information is complete, but extremely vast in terms of possibilities (limitless?).In poker the information is somewhat incomplete but the human is guided by general (and not so general) rules of thumb to guide them in their decisions. Chess computers can beat the best humans, however, a computer that can beat the best humans in poker still eludes.
matggarcia 1 week ago
poker is only a donkgame everybody can win.
DQnk12345 1 week ago
Poker genius?? no way - Thats like saying lottery ticket genius or bingo genius....
tchekitout 1 week ago
cant believe you're discussing chess against poker here ffs..
v1991c 1 week ago
The thing with poker is it's the luck element that makes it exciting - you have to play to avoid that luck or to ensure your opponents get plenty of the bad kind.
DayDreamAscent 1 week ago
And yes, poker is more psychological game. Just I personally don't like that all in all it comes to blind luck. But it's just my opinion, who likes to rule situation 100 percent by his own skills no matter what they are, and be responsible for his good or bad choices and not be glad that, for example, fifth or fourth card made combination which posibilty is 10 percent. By the way, very good comments of yours, thank you for explaining differences between poker and chess computers
MetalScull 2 weeks ago 2
Well, I mentioned chess as mix of art, science and fight to show that chess is not a game consisting only of logic, theory deduction knowledge, it consists of imagination (which, of course, has strong relationship with decuction), that it consist not only from moves, written in the book, that it also consists of psychological games, despite the fact that it's, like you said, it is rather logical game. All of this mixture and not only logic, theory is because of human factor.
MetalScull 2 weeks ago
Why would someone try to compare those two wonderful games? Whats the point really?
Bel1990Bel 2 weeks ago
i was waiting for about 3:45 minutes for this video to make sense...
erihan89 2 weeks ago
Chess 15min move: Me still taking a huge dump
Poker 5Min move : Taking a piss at a school restroom
TheEckoEcho 3 weeks ago
Actually poker is much more intellectually stimulating than chess. Being good chess does not mean you are good at ANYTHING ELSE AT ALL. Kasparov and Fischer are two good examples of that. If you are a skilled poker player you would be sure to also be a math genius. A chess GM might me terrible at math and still play chess very well.
PeterRoeder31 3 weeks ago
Im not saying this to disrespect Fischer and Kasparov. Just making my point.
PeterRoeder31 3 weeks ago
@PeterRoeder31 You couldn't be more wrong. First of all, you can be terrible at maths and still be a very good poker player. You don't need any mathematical skills for poker. Unless you believe that being able to divide by 50, or to memorize some percentages does have to do with maths (it doesn't). It is true that analytical thinking, the ability to concentrate on something very long, seeing patterns, being able to think outside the box helps in poker, but in chess it helps more.
csarmii 3 weeks ago
@csarmii Math doesn't have anything to do with numbers? That would be like saying philosophy has nothing to do with language. You are not making any sense. I'm 35 (almost 36) and been a chess master since I was 15. If I had discovered poker at age 10 there is no doubt my math skills would have been much better. Being into chess, poker and backgammon, I speak from personal experience. I really don't care about being "right" or "wrong" about this. To me poker is very interesting math.
PeterRoeder31 3 weeks ago
@PeterRoeder31 I do make sense and your post proves it. Let's just say that math has nothing more to do with numbers than philosophy with languages. Numbers (language) are very necessary (and basic) tools in these cases. But both go for beyond. I have a maths degree and I can assure you that in the university I rarely used numbers at all.
csarmii 2 weeks ago
@PeterRoeder31 You are probably an idiot who cant tell a knight from a bishop. A good poker player may be good at basic maths but will lack intelligence to calculate dimensions / piece variables and strategies into the chess game. Poker is a casino game – calculate/ intimidate/risk/bluff/hope/ and pray for a win! Chess is about the intelligent game itself and therefore produces the true geniuses of our time. That the 2 are even being compared says more about the time we are living in.
braller1 3 weeks ago
@braller1 Lol, you are such an idiot. I have played a chess world championship. And I am a very strong Poker and Backgammon player also. I don't know why I am even wasting my time talking about this with you. You don't even realize what computers have done to chess. Chess is a game of full information and therefore computers rule the game. In Poker, however, one can actually play better than a computer.
PeterRoeder31 3 weeks ago
@PeterRoeder31 I dont know why you bring your computer into the debate. If you read my argument instead of boasting how good you are at Yahtzee then you'd understand my point is that poker is intellectually inferior to the game of chess. Sure I believe you can beat your computer playing poker because the luck element is huge so well done! you got lucky on the turn? And sorry, playing Chess World Championship on your PC does not mean you actually played in it even if it says FIDE on the box :)
braller1 3 weeks ago
@braller1 A REAL world championship, asshole. Tjeck my chess videos here. For example the one called "My Team Chess Game". You can verify my identity. My peak elo is 2275. In 1992 I played junior-VM in Duisburg. My current elo is 2109. You are such an idiot. You think chess is great? I have lots of GM friends whose life is ruined by chess. Poker is much more interesting. If you want to insult me talk about my lack of poker skills.
PeterRoeder31 3 weeks ago
@PeterRoeder31 So you basically reached a peak at chess 20 years ago, desperately want to brag about nothing meaningful and are frustrated you are stuck with all the other 2100 raters. Big deal. You dont have any expertise to justify the comparison of a casino game you feel more at ease with, to a 1500 year old boardgame that leaves you frustrated. Maybe the GMs you know have had other problems, chess is not a hard drug it does not kill but simply has many more dimensions than a deck of cards.
braller1 3 weeks ago
@braller1 I can still become an FM. Besides that, if you don't want to talk about the impact of computers on chess, who are those "great minds of our time" among chess players. Magnus Carlsen sure. But other than him there can be no doubt Tom Dwan is more interesting than any other top chess player today. Otherwise mention some. Anand? Ivanchuk? Short? Adams? The list could go on and on and one gets bored just thinking about these people.
PeterRoeder31 3 weeks ago
Who are "the great minds of our time" among chessplayers today?????
PeterRoeder31 3 weeks ago
@PeterRoeder31 Listen -I dont care if you don't find the great GMs personalities interesting or not. The world top 10 chess players are intellectually in a different league than top poker players who only have to calculate whats in a deck of cards. The only poker player I like is Rainman ok. It should not be compared end of.
braller1 3 weeks ago
@braller1 Chess is much more attractive to people with Asbergers syndrome. I see you've just admitted that you don't care about the top 10 chess players today since you don't even bother to mention any names. Name one other than Magnus Carlsen. And it has to be an active player.
PeterRoeder31 3 weeks ago
@PeterRoeder31
Chess is much more attractive to people with Asberger syndrome? Prove it if you are so smart.
Chess also demands psychological fight, it became known since Lasker times. In those times people thought that chess is like mathematical game, there calculation is everything. It was Lasker who understood that it's fight between personalities, And he knew that calm player finds hard to do moves which are sharp and "sharp" people will try to find beautiful combination instead of
MetalScull 3 weeks ago
@PeterRoeder31
playing strategical variations.Example for calm player let's say Botvinik or Petrosian, agressive player Tal. And indeed - their playing style reflects their personalities. So you also have to know that sixth sense - maybe not so strong but still you must know what style player is and know how, in psychological terms, he is strong. The reason why in poker that sixth sense is more important is because of luck possabilities, which are stronger than in chess. Other than that, it's
MetalScull 3 weeks ago
@PeterRoeder31
pretty the same because in both games you should know what other person is used to think, feel and what strategy is used to develope. And I don't know how about you, but I don't think that poker should be considered better game just because of bigger luck factor. And you will be right by saying that in poker you need stronger sixth sense, bigger psychology knowledge but it is because poker all it has - sixth sense, psychology and luck. Chess is more complex game
MetalScull 3 weeks ago
@MetalScull
because it has not only psichology, sixth sense (by watching his oponnent's body language decide risk or try to ply in your style which again would be riddle for opponnents psychological knoledge), it also has calculation(ok, poker also has calculation but not as hard), theory. It's a mix between those things, so it has more other aspects than poker. Of course, I don't say that chess is better in general, couse it is matter of taste. Just saying differences and numbers of aspects
MetalScull 3 weeks ago
@MetalScull
of poker and chess. I see those differences and aspects as plus, advantage to chess, other don't.
MetalScull 3 weeks ago
@MetalScull Chess doesn't really have strong psychological aspects. Different players have different styles but ultimately you make your decisions based on pure logic. You certainly don't factor in risk or body language. The difference can best be explained in the difference a professional would play against a beginner. In poker the professional would revert to a basic style with minimal bluffing and no fancy plays. In chess, on the other hand, the professional would play the same way.
toby0cooper 2 weeks ago
@toby0cooper
If minimal bluffing, not taking risk would not help, professional would start to play like he always played. Otherwise he would loose all his money (unless luck will help). In other words, in poker you cannot play like in the same style if you keep being beaten. You also have to watch opponent's movements and react to them - not necessary in the same way. In chess - yes, you have to know theory but it's player's choice in what way use that logic. Everyone has strength and
MetalScull 2 weeks ago
@MetalScull The reason a professional poker player bluffs minimally against beginners is that they tend to overvalue their hands and call way too much. This makes it more profitable to tighten up and exploit their style. Trying to bluff against beginners is much more difficult because they do not understand plays and find it much more difficult to fold their hands. And the professional can keep playing in that style because beginners are much less likely to adapt to it.
toby0cooper 2 weeks ago
@toby0cooper
weaknesses and you obviously try to win using your advantages. For example, pure logic says that you have to rule board's center but how to do that? Some will try to create situation then rooks are main figures, some will do that with bishops, some will try to get rid of all figures as soon as possible because they are professionals in ending with only pawns (that means that even fight to center isn't so important since goal is to make pawn into stronger figure. By knowing your
MetalScull 2 weeks ago
@MetalScull I think we differ on our definitions of the word 'logic'. I think you understand the word as 'theory' whereas my definition is closer to the word 'deduction'. As a result I don't think that it can be compared to writing or letters in the way you have suggested. Of course, you might adopt a particular style depending on the opponent's level of aggression (that might determine which opening you use) but your decisions should not be motivated by risk or psychological factors.
toby0cooper 2 weeks ago
@toby0cooper
It still depends how good you know your opponent, how good you know his weaknesses. In chess there are literal billions and billions possabilities how can you go, by deduction you choose which you want to take. It's you, who decide what goals you want to achieve first and what last and it is influenced by your opponent's move. Yes, you can try to attack some weak squares but the thing is what minuses of your position are. By knowing what your opponent is able to do you can either
MetalScull 2 weeks ago
@toby0cooper
take attention to defense or you can attack even more. Playing in cold theory, deduction way is very dangerous because human is not a computer. When you are playing against the computer, it's different story, unless you can see it's weaknesses in other games and do the risk (which in this case may be logical thing since compu possibilities wehich isn't influenced by luck (at least most of the time) - that what makes chess the game of theory, deduction and psichology together.
MetalScull 2 weeks ago
@toby0cooper
Sorry, haven't written full thought about computer.
So, risk against computer based on his weaknesses may be even very logical move since it is already programmed what to do. Of course, it's enormously hard to see today computer's issues.
What I want to say, that the game can not be based only on risk, psychological factors (even magician Tal didn't do that) but chess without any of these things would be only science which is not.
MetalScull 2 weeks ago
@MetalScull
At least chess between people is combination between science, art and fight. I think that history has proven that.
MetalScull 2 weeks ago
@MetalScull Some rather strange things have come up in your argument. I am not sure about the ways in which science, art and fight are relevant to a discussion about chess. It is certainly interesting that you bring up computers in the argument though, because that tells a lot about the differences in the games.
At present, computers that play these games rely entirely on deduction. The difference between the computers that play the games is the data that they deduct. In chess, the computer
toby0cooper 2 weeks ago
@MetalScull will look only at the current position for its premise, will consider all of the logical possibilities from such a position and will then select the best situation. This train of thought precisely replicates the thinking process of a professional chess player. The thing to note is that the only input data the computer requires is an initial position. The computer does not consider the opponent's tendencies or the risk of the opponent spotting the weaknesses in each move.
toby0cooper 2 weeks ago
@MetalScull This might be contrasted with the way a (good) poker computer operates. A poker computer requires many more data inputs than the chess one and that is part of the reason that they have not had any success at the upper echelons of the game (unlike Deep Blue in chess). The poker computer needs inputs on how tight and aggressive the opponent is. How likely he is to bluff, 3-bet, 4-bet, donk bet, overbet, etc. Based on such data the computer will produce a list of the opponent's most
toby0cooper 2 weeks ago
@MetalScull likely hands; giving each hand a percentage degree of likelihood. The computer must then consider its own possibilities as they match up against the opponent's cards and tendencies. He should consider how likely the opponent is to fold to a bet (at each different size of the bet) and that might determine how much the computer should bluff / value bet for. The computer should consider the opponent's image of the computer (i.e. if the computer has a tight image a bluff will be easier).
toby0cooper 2 weeks ago
@MetalScull The computers might also consider the length of delay that the opponent took before betting / checking for that might be a tell.
There are a vast number more variables in poker that I might have mentioned but I think I have provided enough to show the fundamental distinction between the two games. The best computers in the games are ones that replicate the human train of thought. In poker a computer makes every decision based upon heavy analysis of the opponent's tendencies.
toby0cooper 2 weeks ago
@MetalScull In chess, on the other hand, no such analysis of the opponent is necessary (the only piece of information required is the current board position). The difference in input variables required shows that chess is a strictly logical game as opposed to poker which is heavily psychological. It is for this very reason that it is so much more difficult to design a top poker computer; for there are so many more variables to consider.
toby0cooper 2 weeks ago
@toby0cooper wrong, input such as whether a player has been beaten using a certain variation earlier in the day or tournament may result in a different game entirely. A player's tendencies are also largely psychological. Just like a poker player going all in on "lucky" cards, a chess player may play a gambit that they perchance have had success with
Shadowboost 1 week ago
@Shadowboost I am talking about the way that a chess computer works. The computer does not factor in which variations (do you mean openings?) an opponent has previously won or lost with (and given the vast number of variations they would probably be out of the computer's data range).
Referring to "lucky" cards and whether a player lost with a certain opening earlier that day is really referring to the weaker players. Professionals do not operate in such a way. That is either the result of tilt
toby0cooper 1 week ago
@Shadowboost or a lack of experience. Even if Chris Ferguson won 100 times out of 100 with 72o you wouldn't see him ever willingly call all in with it preflop (unless he had terrific pot odds) because the professional understands that in the long run such cards have a negative EV.
Now a chess player's tendencies may have a psychological basis. But that factor would not affect the way in which a chess computer would operate for there will always be only one correct move in any situation.
toby0cooper 1 week ago
@toby0cooper depending on how you feel about determinism, you could argue that in poker there is only ever one correct play in any situation also. Granted it is argueably much more difficult to create a machine that is able to find that correct play in poker than it is in chess, being more based on psychology than algorithms. but it is still true that for an omniscient being there would only be one correct play in any poker situation.
rodneystar 1 week ago
@rodneystar Yes, and here lies the difference. The correct play in chess would be the same against every single opponent. The correct play in poker would (with obvious exceptions aside - like calling all in with AA HU preflop) be different for every opponent. Both computers find one move to be optimal, just that in poker that move is determined by the psychological characteristics of the opponent.
toby0cooper 1 week ago
@toby0cooper
opponent's style you decide how to make his life of chess unpleasant.You won't fight positional chess if your opponent crushes everyone in such style. Logic is like letters. you can know them very well but it doesn't mean that you know how to read (what intonations you have to use, then do pause and then don't, how to speak about situation to show it's atmosphere persuasively and etc. In mind you know what you wanna say but it doesn't work then you open your mouth. Once I read my
MetalScull 2 weeks ago
@toby0cooper
poetry to a group of people. In my mind I knew what I wanna say, I knew how it should be read but it was awful then I actually did that.
On the other hand, you can read book very good and other can do that as good but you both do that very differently. It's matter of interpretation and audience. Logic can be compared to writing: there is theory how to do that but it's your decision what story will it be, in what way you will develope it, how should look main characters and etc.
MetalScull 2 weeks ago
People like Kim Peek and Daniel Tammet would not do well in Holdem since you have to have an emotional feel for the game, like a sixth sense, and an ability to move all-in, refuse an all-in, etc.
PeterRoeder31 3 weeks ago
@PeterRoeder31 you are doing nothing positive at all for either game by talking like that. please do not sprout crap about magic senses and emotional 'feel'. The ability to discern other peoples emotions from their actions, and the ability to mask or control the projection of your own is a valuable skill in poker yes, but it's not magic. great players' decisions are calculated, precise, based on careful thought and skill. not magic.
rodneystar 1 week ago
Next week golf genius vs wrestling genius
Manveru31 3 weeks ago
there is an optin to make your videos private if they are not for sharing with youtube.
bbbbbb222222 3 weeks ago
actually you are the dummy: I used to ask the very question to any number of top level gms in my travels, and to a man they all said that often they had no notion of what they were doing, and that goes for, when I say top level, Spassky when I was in Europe not long after his second defeat, Larsen, a very bright amiable fellow and many many more. But you go right on feeling you have it all figured out, old sport and we will see where you finish on the cross tables.
doctornoooo 3 weeks ago
one more dislike !
punkmanzz 3 weeks ago
anyone who feels there is no luck in chess ...has never played the game much. With such complexity it is usual just plain, luck that you chose the right next few moves, luck that he doesnt take you into something unprepared, just for starters. Overall
it evens out, just as in poker, backgammon or any game, but hate to break the news, it might even be possible there is MORE luck in chess than poker. At the highest level you
often hear the greats saying I didnt know at ALL what I was doing.
doctornoooo 3 weeks ago
@doctornoooo Chess is by definition a game with NO luck. By its very nature, being a "complete information" game, there are no hidden variables. I think it's you who don't understand much about chess, that's obvious.
Btw I'm an active tournament player next to master level, so I know what I'm talking about.
ArtinArt 3 weeks ago
@ArtinArt in fact you have descended to the banal level of common consensus, elevating the skills of chess over those of poker: Lasker in his own way was THE master poker player, as was Tal, complicating things till neither knew what they were doing, with each simply being better tactically. Their LUCK being they were better players. But if it makes you feel better trumpeting your homilies, there are online sites you and I could play for some real bread. Be glad to.
doctornoooo 3 weeks ago
@doctornoooo Lasker was mostly considered a pragmatic player, not a tactical genius. Tal was THE tactical genius. Was he lucky being a genius? There's NO luck in chess, poker does have it. It's a mathematical fact not an opinion, get over it. Obviously a good poker player will predict variables better, working with what he has. Maybe if I beat you ten times in a row you could understand the difference between luck and skills in chess. What site? Chesscube, ICC, FICS ... pick one.
ArtinArt 3 weeks ago
@ArtinArt now you really went so stupid on me that I will leave you to your delusions To say that Lasker was not a master of tactics shows it. At this point I realize I am talking to a very very stupid guy. Probably a chess nerd to boot. Adios, Tonto.
doctornoooo 3 weeks ago
@ArtinArt here dummy, just to show you how stupid your are Or maybe you dont even know just how good Fine was.
As I pored over the games of the great masters, two styles appealed to me above all others: Lasker and Steinitz. In Lasker I saw, above all, the supreme tactical genius . And in Steinitz I saw the master of consistency;. – Reuben Fine
doctornoooo 3 weeks ago
@doctornoooo I said he was mostly considered pragmatic, not that he wasn't a very good tactician. He's renowed for great defensive skills and pragmatism, end. Is this your pathetic plan to escape the chess match that YOU have suggested? How coward. Come on, pick up an online chess site, coward. Otherwise shut the fuck up, cowards don't have the right to an opinion. Are you scared little baby?
ArtinArt 3 weeks ago
@doctornoooo you are not talking about the nature of the game, you are talking about the relative ineptitude of the players. just because i can't hit a penny at 100m with a sniper rifle, doesnt mean the gun is inaccurate.
rodneystar 1 week ago
terrible awful music
specialkaran 4 weeks ago
poker is retarded compared to chess
voinytvittu 4 weeks ago
the thing that everyone must understand is that there is no CHANCE involved in poker
there is no luck
850iStyle 4 weeks ago
@850iStyle Yes there is! Of course there's luck in poker, that's what makes it interesting. Why do you think there's bankroll management?? So that you won't bust when the card doesn't swing your way. You could be the best poker player ever, but if you keep getting 27o, you will never win anything.
Good players will have the edge due to their skills and 99% will be making a profit in the long run, but anything can happen in short term. Why do you think there's something called bad beat?
lolipedofin 4 weeks ago
weirdo
ueberdruff 1 month ago
i just noticed that durrr is a total asshole
DjNewtOfficial 1 month ago
ha great!
Musicmatttheonly1 1 month ago
Basic skills is all you need, Hope that you make the wrong play at the right time.Then you win. I play good players comes down to lucK, Now total amateurs thats different
XAVIERDDD 1 month ago
there are only very small similarities between chess and poker. chess is a pure skill game. whereas poker is heavily influenced by luck.
dieselboy87 1 month ago
is this a real video ?
PuckYouMeez 1 month ago
Chess and poker are equally hard, both has a 50 % chance of winning and 50 % of loseing
Zerulk 1 month ago
@Zerulk I hope you are trolling, otherwise I just lost hope for the intelligence of human kind.
MrCiguma 1 month ago
With chess you have all the infos, with poker you don't
MrShoy 1 month ago
OMG I love chess, *_*
RandomStereotype 1 month ago
wait... what? what does this have to do with the title? This is fucking gay.
urwholefamilydied 1 month ago
flagged for child abuse
EziixPked 1 month ago
@EziixPked i'm also flagging this as a potential terrorist attack
1821aftershock 1 month ago
i just lost 3.5 minutus
tieroner10 1 month ago
and again...Poker World Champion vs noob, the chance is 50%-50%
Chess Champion vs noob, the chance is 100%-0%
If u play chess until somepoint u will realize that what Garry Kasparov said is true that chess is 'Mental Torture'...Poker is highly rated because it play money.
nataschmidtt 1 month ago
@nataschmidtt all of this is insanely wrong
OsefKincaid 1 month ago
@nataschmidtt you are wrong bud... all though poker might have some luck to do with it, its a game of deception and the best cards dont always win the pot... if it was 50/50 why do you always see the same players at the final tables?
nipmipyttocs 1 month ago
@nipmipyttocs it's simple..they had more luck than the others. Poker is random, no pattern, nothing to think about, 99% luck
nataschmidtt 1 month ago
@nataschmidtt Uhhhh.. While the card display is random, the actual skill comes in reading players, making proper bets, making proper calls, thus making it a skill game. Lottery is luck, poker is controlled by the players involved.
fundslender 1 month ago 7
@fundslender
youre kidding right? does this also apply to online where reading players is not possible?
the "best" poker player in the word (if there is such a thing) control the other players, read other players and make proper bets, therefore nullify any advantage. so whats involved after that?.............yep, you guessed it, luck.
johnnytheprick 2 weeks ago
@johnnytheprick I don't joke about poker. See, the problem is, you seem to put the game in a category where every hand is played all in, every hand. In THAT case, yes, it's ALL luck. As I was pointing out, the SIMPLE FACT that you can FOLD (which takes skill), makes it a skill game. You're also assuming that every player you play against is the best player in the world, which also isn't true. The mere fact that you say anything opposing me suggests you don't win a lot.
fundslender 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fundslender
"you seem to put the game in a category where every hand is played all in, every hand".......where did i write that? if anything, youre the one assuming.
"the SIMPLE FACT that you can FOLD (which takes skill), makes it a skill game"......im going to let re-read that before commenting.
and now for my favourite:"You're also assuming that every player you play against is the best player in the world, which also isn't true."..... TBC
end part 1.
johnnytheprick 2 weeks ago
@fundslender ...continued
"You're also assuming that every player you play against is the best player in the world, which also isn't true." - i left out one word which changes the whole meaning, the word being "If". "If" we gather the best players in the world, taking into account their reading, "folding" and betting skills, none of them would have an advantage.
"The mere fact that you say anything opposing me suggests you don't win a lot." - how many wsop titles have you won?
johnnytheprick 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnnytheprick '"If" we gather the best players in the world' - I disagree, if you watch High Stakes Poker, some of the best players in the world play there, and I'd say that's a pretty skill filled table.
"how many wsop titles have you won?" - I'm 0 for 0 in WSOP Events. I find it funny that you opt to define winning poker by asking how many WSOP Titles I've won, like that's the strict criteria for a winning poker player.
fundslender 2 weeks ago
@fundslender so you are saying that it's a complete coincidence that the same players are at the final tables out of hundreds of thousands of entries at the same tournaments year in, year out?
rodneystar 1 week ago
@rodneystar No, I'm saying that it's complete SKILL that's causing that. I suppose you must have misread, or just cherry picked what I said. There's not hundreds of thousands of players.
fundslender 1 week ago
@nataschmidtt You officially know nothing about poker, do you think lady luck is just horny as fuck for the professionals and constantly gives em BJs under the table when they're playing against ameteurs? poker is at least 60% skill for those guys
westbororapist 1 month ago
@nataschmidtt they had more luck then the others? is that your statement? wow you are indeed an idiot. if you know the game at all you will see alot of good hands beaten by shit because of the way they played it. this is like arguing with a wall.
nipmipyttocs 1 month ago
@nataschmidtt right man. yes, of course there is some variance in poker, and none in chess, but to say that poker is 50 -50 with an experienced player against a noob shows that you have either not played the game properly or are just an idiot (which i do not expect from someone so passionate about chess).... play me heads up over a number of games and we'll see whether its 50-50....
johnsav14 1 month ago
@johnsav14 nah..i still believe the chance is still 50-50..it's only about guessing whether u have a better card or not, sometimes u right, sometimes u fail..that's it
nataschmidtt 1 month ago
@nataschmidtt Do your homework before commenting.. If we're playing heads up, and you're dealt AA, and I'm dealt 72o. That is NOT 50/50. Your chance of winning is 88.74% over the course of millions of hands, which, last I checked, was a pretty good sample size.
fundslender 1 month ago
@nataschmidtt Please keep an open mind about poker, none of us are saying that chess is stupid, so why can't you open yourself to reason, and try to understand poker.
What you misunderstood is, poker is not just about guessing your opponent's card, it is about bet sizing, probabilities, and understanding your opponent's tendency, habits and tellls. The better players can win more when they have a winning hand and lose less when they lost a hand, as simple as that.
lolipedofin 4 weeks ago
yes this is stupid comparison. An experienced poker player can be beaten anytime by a noob, meanwhile, there's no way I can be beaten by a beginner or 1700 rating player at chess...btw why is the "should be the top comment" comment marked as spam? Agreed poker is 99% luck and 1% alcohol ...LoL...
nataschmidtt 1 month ago
LOL I play both, and I think the comparison is laughable. Chess is the most complex game of all time, the geniuses who succeed at them have incredibly high IQs.... poker players...well, just look at Hellmouth, lol.
IndigentiaSumEgo 1 month ago
@IndigentiaSumEgo Go is more complex than Chess in my opinion, Just ask any computer programmer and they would agree. Go is still light years away from being cracked by any AI, as for poker, no AI has been able to beat the best players in a consistent basis.
In the first place Chess and Poker utilizes a totally different set of skills, True there's less than 0.01% luck in chess, but no other game combines psychology and mathematical analysis like poker does.
lolipedofin 1 month ago
poker requires so many diffrent skills in compariosn,,u need balls, the ability to react to diffrent player,,recognise betting patterns, etc. the game poker is a simple in comparison to chess,anyone can play, but it takes years to master and in the long run the better player is always going to win, so therefore not gambling
MrJacked86 1 month ago
i like Oส็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็Mส็
kvnd7331 1 month ago
I hate hachem he is a fucking bully and a prick.
ElMakz 1 month ago
what was the purpose of this
ljiokljjp 1 month ago 34
@ljiokljjp
for a discussion on twoplustwo forum
perplexed76 4 weeks ago 2
I liked it.
Zigazgman1 1 month ago
LOL Chess vs Poker. Chess is PURE skill and knowledge. Poker is massively psychological. So this is a silly comparison. Besides, Chess is much more elegant :)
godzac 1 month ago 3
@godzac Poker is also much more influenced by blind luck.
bbkingzor 1 month ago 14
@bbkingzor 10% luck maybe.
MrOlliguitar 1 month ago
@MrOlliguitar Did you conduct experiments yourself to discover it was 10%?
bbkingzor 1 month ago
@bbkingzor i said maybe.. based on experience.
MrOlliguitar 1 month ago
@MrOlliguitar If based purely on experience, then it's absolutely useless.
bbkingzor 1 month ago
@bbkingzor Yeah. Compared to chess, poker is riddled with luck. Chess is all mathematics, you can't really bluff or hide your motives, and the only luck you're gonna face is the off chance that your opponent doesn't see, realize or know what you are doing.
Devilsnightforlife 1 month ago
@Devilsnightforlife I don't see much math involved in chess, to be honest. It's a game of strategy and problem solving, and not much number crunching is required, unless you're a Chess AI programmer. I could be wrong, though.
Poker in the other hand, is what I call a unique combination of math and psychology. psychology part is obvious, but the math of poker, the skill to calculate probs, odds, implied odds, expectation, all of them on the fly is what gave guys like Chris Ferguson, an edge.
lolipedofin 4 weeks ago
@bbkingzor Poker is about reading other players.
carlsoto1747 3 weeks ago
@carlsoto1747 Uhm... Yes, it is also that.... And your point is?
bbkingzor 3 weeks ago
@bbkingzor no
FutureUnleashed 3 weeks ago
Chess requires 100x more skill to be the best. Poker can be mastered in 2-3 years thats why there are so many good players. And yes I play a lot of poker and admit this
readsummer 1 month ago
Chess and poker require two completely different skill sets. I think it is a mistake to try to compare them.
joyalram 1 month ago
Lol @ the comments; Positive EV versus Gambler's Ruin...
JDLupus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
is this serisously? comparing chess with poker? chess is 100% skill and intelligence. Poker is 0,1% skill 90% luck, and 9,9% alcohol. Poker is all about guessing. Guessing whether u have better cards than ur opponent or not. Thats it, but a little bit too harsh to say poker is 100% luck.
TottentanzRon 1 month ago
Comment removed
TottentanzRon 1 month ago
Comment removed
TottentanzRon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hello. Join POKERGADdotCOM For Poker Tournaments (Freerolls, Conditioned Freerolls, Good Buy-in Tournaments, Private Leagues and so on).
BlueGam3r 1 month ago
An attempt to make chess not boring to watch. A failed attempt.
masonashlock 1 month ago
People saying poker is takes more skill are retarded. I play competition standard in both and to be fair, anyone can play poker it is just 80% probability for example...I have NEVER lost a competition game of chess to people who are new to the game. but have lost poker tournaments from calling all-ins from first timers who got lucky a fair few times...
"Poker is a game of chance and with probability there is always a % you will lose....but with chess its ALL on you"
qwersdxqwersdx 2 months ago
@qwersdxqwersdx you're wrong. anyone can win a poker tournament, but only experts can win at poker CONSISTENTLY. LONG TERM, poker is a game of SKILL.
tiehut 1 month ago
@tiehut you're right,in long term skill is the significant factor.
Still chess depends entirely on you, poker doesn't.
I just finished in third place in a sit and go today.We both went all in before the flop.I had Aces , he had Jacks.In the long run I'll probably win 80 &% of the time.But the thing is I didn't win today.
Imagine if that happened to a good player at the WSOP main event in the first round .Skill wise he could have won it . But bad luck prevented him .
bogdychamp 1 month ago
@bogdychamp the point is that if poker was easy to master, you would be a millionaire right now. anyone who masters poker becomes a millionaire by winning MOST of the time.
tiehut 1 month ago
@bogdychamp A good player doen'st go allin with ONLY A PAIR OF ACES in the beginning of a large field tournament, thats negative EV donk......
lorrenzopicozzi 1 month ago
@tiehut Maybe that guy will get another chance in the future , the thing is he lost this one.
So luck does play it's part, no matter what anybody says.
Some pros say that in the long run skill is 90-99%.
I disagree.Skill is only 70-80 % (still that is a lot) .
The thing is that in ches skill is , was and will always be 100 %.
I play both games.I could never get beat by a beginner at chess, but i can get beat at poker.
bogdychamp 1 month ago
@bogdychamp the point is that poker is as difficult to master as is chess.
tiehut 1 month ago
@tiehut LMFAO!!!!. Not even in the vicinity of being as close. I'm almost a titled player at chess, and chess is way more difficult than poker. I play poker a lot at our casino down here.
myst93 1 month ago
@myst93 have you won millions of dollars playing poker? if not, then you have not mastered the game of poker. if it were so easy, you would be a millionaire by now, you idiot.
tiehut 1 month ago
@tiehut Shut the fuck up moron, you have no idea what you're talking about. You can play perfect poker and still lose your ass. Stupid piece of shit, don't argue with me when you're 100% wrong yourself. Dumbass. No noob is beating me at chess ever, but they sure can at poker. Now fuck off.
myst93 1 month ago
@myst93 You are right a noob can beat your ass at poker...cuz your a noob...if I play deepstack cash game with noobs, there is just NO WAY i can loose...NOT IN A MILLION YEARS!
lorrenzopicozzi 1 month ago
@myst93 you are a fucking idiot. poker is not blackjack. poker is not roulette. poker is a SKILL game. over long periods of time, poker masters PROFIT. you are too stupid to understand this. poker masters lose some of the time, but win MOST of the time. tom dawn is a poker master. he is not lucky. he is skilled.
tiehut 1 month ago
@myst93 it is IMPOSSIBLE to "lose your ass" when playing perfect poker, because perfect poker includes proper BANKROLL MANAGEMENT. a poker pro NEVER risks his whole bankroll in one poker game. you are too stupid to understand this concept.
tiehut 1 month ago
@tiehut I didnt tell you to talk you fucking piece of shit dog. No matter whether you have 5% of your br on the table or not, you can still lose. Fuckin scumbag, you have no idea what you're talking about you fucking idiot. Fuck off. Asshole. Heads up, 2k each any day you piece of dog shit. Youre too stupid to understand any of this, so go jump off a bridge and do the world a good deed. Fucking prick asshole.
myst93 1 month ago
@myst93 you're too stupid to be a chess player. stick to checkers. you are mentally ill
tiehut 1 month ago
@myst93 come to think of it, bobby fischer was mentally ill. are you bobby fischer? lol
tiehut 1 month ago
@bogdychamp Because you are an idiot....you can loose a pot to an amateur when the outdraw on you or stuff like that, but in a deepstack game if you get ALL your chips eaten up by a beginner, then you need to learn how to play poker correctly cuz that just doesn't happen...EVER
lorrenzopicozzi 1 month ago
this is a joke.
thecharliecollins 2 months ago
Chess is a deterministic, with no secret knowledge. Poker is the opposite. Both obviously require skill, as there are people that consistently do well. I'd say poker has more high highs, and low lows, due to the fact of having probability is a factor and the you are not always in control. Anyone else get here because you searched Blindfolded chess?
ptotzke 2 months ago
I'm both a chess player and a poker player. Both require skill
simonpopzz 2 months ago 3
If i play with booby fisher,i gonna loose for sure!If i play with Stu Ungar-Phil Ivey,maybe with a little bit of luck,i gonna win!
Moussadis 3 months ago 2
There is no comparison between chess and poker. If you think other wise your just a very week chess player with little understanding of the game.
TamaNewb 4 months ago
@TamaNewb What are you trying to say? That poker is just luck and chess is all skill?
superjeff14 2 months ago
@superjeff14 Poker is 99% skill. Chess however... :)
desmurfenzijnblauw 2 months ago
@TamaNewb i'm pretty sure you've never sat down a a poker table and actually played POKER.
DopeSince92 2 months ago