Is Poker Harder Than Chess?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jive2day
  • Start date Start date
For me you need much more skill in chess.
As much as you see your opponent and what he does, he can have in his mind at least 10 moves in a row that you must discover, and in turn try to make your game to achieve the beloved checkmate.
Poker is a game where most of the MTT is almost unplayed. If it's okay, every time your opponents move, see if you can bluff, or semi-bluff to steal a blind, or see a flop with bad cards that might favor you. But not much more than that.
In chess, as much as everyone knows the openings, you must immediately determine how to break that structure that the opponent poses to you.
In chess you have an error and in general it is fatal, in poker you have an error and according to your position in the MTT and your stack you can rebuild yourself.
In chess luck doesn't exist, the only luck you can have is that you play against Magnus Carlsen and he has a fever of 40° so he doesn't show up and you win.
What could be compared between chess and poker is that in both, there is strategy, there is discipline, there is patience, there is intelligence, not much else.
greetings friend🙂🙂🙂😊😊😊
 
jive2day said:
I am a chess player with an international FIDE rating of 2120. There is no equivalent term of 'tilt' in chess. Because, equivalent of bad beats don't exist in chess. There is something called oversight, where a player makes a mistake that isn't expected of his skill level. But, that is not bad beat.

Poker is far more emotionally demanding. Now, I am not stating with conviction that poker is tougher. High level poker is somewhat mechanical, like high level chess. In chess the best players rack their brains only during 5-6 positions in a 60 move game. Similarly, in poker the best players play on an average 20-30% of their hands and rack their brains in 3-4 hands. I am not too sure, as I am a beginner in poker.

In an any case, what is your opinion?
Click to expand...
I think they are different types of games. So I think the most difficult thing is to compare one with the other. Every athlete has a skill for a sport. And he's easier on the one that matches best.
 
Intellectuals, good mathematicians and thinkers definitely win in chess, it is more versatile and complex than poker. Playing poker is more about the ability to be an actor and a lucky guy, a person of good mood who can dream and go towards his goal.😊
 
ToNy70929 said:
Intellectuals, good mathematicians and thinkers definitely win in chess, it is more versatile and complex than poker. Playing poker is more about the ability to be an actor and a lucky guy, a person of good mood who can dream and go towards his goal.😊
Click to expand...
Oh i would definitely like to learn the ability to be a lucky guy. 😉

FrizzaoR said:
Poker has more possibilities I think.
Click to expand...
Chess is one of the most complex games with an nearly infinte amount of different positions. For move 1 there are 400 different possible positions. For move 5 there are 69 352 859712 417 possible positions.
 
Reply
  • Like
Reactions: Peteski84 and FrizzaoR
Peteski84 said:
For unskilled players that might be the case.
If thats how it worked, what would be the point of competitions or even playing it. Who goes first wins.
Wouldn't that just be a game of heads and tails.
Heads, your white, you win, game decided.
Click to expand...
1666810825840

Are you sure?
 
HeiligerKevin said:
Chess is one of the most complex games with an nearly infinte amount of different positions. For move 1 there are 400 different possible positions. For move 5 there are 69 352 859712 417 possible positions.
Click to expand...
And yet, still fewer possible moves than in poker
 
HeiligerKevin said:
Chess is one of the most complex games with an nearly infinte amount of different positions. For move 1 there are 400 different possible positions. For move 5 there are 69 352 859712 417 possible positions.
Click to expand...
Original message at Reddit.

One of my favorite cool facts said in different way is about the number of unique orders for cards in a standard 52 card deck (52! = 8.06581751709e+67= 806 581 751 709 000 000 * 10^50).
  • Set a timer to count down 52! seconds (that's 8.0658*10^67 seconds).
  • Stand on the equator, and take a step forward every billion years.
  • When you've circled the earth once, take a drop of water from the Pacific Ocean, and keep going.
  • When the Pacific Ocean is empty, lay a sheet of paper down, refill the ocean and carry on.
  • When your stack of paper reaches the sun, take a look at the timer.
The 3 left-most digits won't have changed. 8.063*10^67 seconds left to go. You have to repeat the whole process 1000 times to get 1/3 of the way through that time. 5.385*10^67 seconds left to go. So to kill that time you try something else.
  • Shuffle a deck of cards, deal yourself 5 cards every billion years.
    • Each time you get a royal flush, buy a lottery ticket.
    • Each time that ticket wins the jackpot, throw a grain of sand in the grand canyon.
  • When the grand canyon's full, take 1oz of rock off Mount Everest, empty the canyon and carry on.
  • When Everest has been leveled, check the timer.
There's barely any change. 5.364*10^67 seconds left. You'd have to repeat this process 256 times to have run out the timer.

Now, the best part is that we haven't even finished shuffling cards, not even mentioning incomplete information, number of players, decisions on streets or ICM in case of tournaments, and infinite betting sizing scale.
Can it be simplified? Yes , sure, it can.
 
Reply
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: EarnDAStack and okeedokalee
EarnDAStack said:
View attachment 315508

Are you sure?
Click to expand...

Then doesnt that prove my point white doesnt always win, so its not who goes first wins. It points out that it takes some degree of skill to beat white. White doesnt win every time.
My main point initially was that there should be no reliance on luck in a game of pure skill.
Poker has some reliance on luck, even someone who counts themselves as a professional should acknowledge this fact.
This should not be the case in chess, luck should play no part.
 
They are two different games. Chess what you see is fairly obvious, most information is obtainable. In poker much of the game is disguised.
 
Poker and chess are different and require completely different skills, poker has been recognized as a mental sport by the international association of mental sports in 2011, this recognition had already been given to chess for several years, therefore they have similarities in terms of mental abilities, but for the rest they have a lot of difference.
 
orchidra said:
Is poker harder than chess?

No.

I, along with all but a small hand full of people in the world, would never be able to defeat Magnus Carlsen at chess.

However, I would give myself more than a starters chance, of beating Daniel Negreanu in a heads up poker game.
Click to expand...
and if u did beat him hed never play u again
 
Peteski84 said:
Then doesnt that prove my point white doesnt always win, so its not who goes first wins. It points out that it takes some degree of skill to beat white. White doesnt win every time.
My main point initially was that there should be no reliance on luck in a game of pure skill.
Poker has some reliance on luck, even someone who counts themselves as a professional should acknowledge this fact.
This should not be the case in chess, luck should play no part.
Click to expand...
Winning 65% or 2/3 is "Most" And you said the differential was less at the higher skill level where it's actually the opposite. Both your statements were and are incorrect
 
EarnDAStack said:
Winning 65% or 2/3 is "Most" And you said the differential was less at the higher skill level where it's actually the opposite. Both your statements were and are incorrect
Click to expand...
My initial point was the difference in how luck affect the type of game.
In poker there are similarities to a lottery, with the cards in the deck dealers holds being unknown this being the same as picking a number out of a hat and hoping it matches yours.
In chess there is none of this, no reliance on the whimsy of luck, fate or divine intervention. Its entirely up to the two playing as to the outcome of come of a chess match.
I enjoy poker and i am not say there is no skill involved, there is plenty of it in many aspects of the game. It is plentiful of tactics and style but luck has a high contributing factor. The best hand on the table can easily be beaten by the worst hand on the table, we've all seen it.
I see you are very defensive on this matter no need to be so.
I assume luck never plays a factor in your games and you must be positive that you only win with skill and skill alone. Good for you, you keep doing that.
 
EarnDAStack said:
And yet, still fewer possible moves than in poker
Click to expand...
D0nk3y Hunt3r said:
Original message at Reddit.

One of my favorite cool facts said in different way is about the number of unique orders for cards in a standard 52 card deck (52! = 8.06581751709e+67= 806 581 751 709 000 000 * 10^50).
  • Set a timer to count down 52! seconds (that's 8.0658*10^67 seconds).
  • Stand on the equator, and take a step forward every billion years.
  • When you've circled the earth once, take a drop of water from the Pacific Ocean, and keep going.
  • When the Pacific Ocean is empty, lay a sheet of paper down, refill the ocean and carry on.
  • When your stack of paper reaches the sun, take a look at the timer.
The 3 left-most digits won't have changed. 8.063*10^67 seconds left to go. You have to repeat the whole process 1000 times to get 1/3 of the way through that time. 5.385*10^67 seconds left to go. So to kill that time you try something else.
  • Shuffle a deck of cards, deal yourself 5 cards every billion years.
    • Each time you get a royal flush, buy a lottery ticket.
    • Each time that ticket wins the jackpot, throw a grain of sand in the grand canyon.
  • When the grand canyon's full, take 1oz of rock off Mount Everest, empty the canyon and carry on.
  • When Everest has been leveled, check the timer.
There's barely any change. 5.364*10^67 seconds left. You'd have to repeat this process 256 times to have run out the timer.

Now, the best part is that we haven't even finished shuffling cards, not even mentioning incomplete information, number of players, decisions on streets or ICM in case of tournaments, and infinite betting sizing scale.
Can it be simplified? Yes , sure, it can.
Click to expand...
In chess to calculate all the possible positions is impossible, since there are less atoms in the universe than possible positions, but most estimates reach from 10^100 to 10^120 possible positions, so there are clearly more different possiblities in chess than in poker.
 
HeiligerKevin said:
In chess to calculate all the possible positions is impossible, since there are less atoms in the universe than possible positions, but most estimates reach from 10^100 to 10^120 possible positions, so there are clearly more different possiblities in chess than in poker.
Click to expand...
I f you would have read my post thoroughly you wouldn't just drop other things I mentioned.
This is interesting take on subject, there is about 10^15 difference on raw numbers, only for HUNL:
 
jive2day said:
I am a chess player with an international FIDE rating of 2120. There is no equivalent term of 'tilt' in chess. Because, equivalent of bad beats don't exist in chess. There is something called oversight, where a player makes a mistake that isn't expected of his skill level. But, that is not bad beat.

Poker is far more emotionally demanding. Now, I am not stating with conviction that poker is tougher. High level poker is somewhat mechanical, like high level chess. In chess the best players rack their brains only during 5-6 positions in a 60 move game. Similarly, in poker the best players play on an average 20-30% of their hands and rack their brains in 3-4 hands. I am not too sure, as I am a beginner in poker.

In an any case, what is your opinion?
Click to expand...
Full disclosure - I barely know the basics of Chess strategy, and 'harder' is a subjective term, but I'd imagine it would depend on what you're good at. I would imagine you'd have a finite set of responses/counter strategies in Chess, so you'd find players who can apply an effective long game strategy to be successful, then you're just modifying to your opponent's strategy based on preset responses. Assuming we're talking about NLHE tournament play and not cash Poker is much more about tactical decisions combined with an effective game strategy, so there's more adaptation based your table, tournament structure and stage, etc...

The best indicator would be find a Chess GM like Magnus Carlsen who plays poker and see how they progress versus a Poker pro who's making it to GM and see who progresses faster and stays ahead of the game.
 
D0nk3y Hunt3r said:
I f you would have read my post thoroughly you wouldn't just drop other things I mentioned.
This is interesting take on subject, there is about 10^15 difference on raw numbers, only for HUNL:
Click to expand...
If you would have read my post thoroughly you would have understood that i talked about possible moves not moves that would probably be played in a game.
 
Its not the same i think but in chess you have too play for 2 or 3 shot before and in poker its more luck than the chess....
 
I don,t know i really always wanted to learn chess,but still cannot get it.
 
There are two different games. Both got a complexity in the game, depending on the players skills.
 
both are pure strategy, with the difference that in chess you cannot lie
 
It seems to me that chess is more difficult, you have to think not only your own moves, but also how your opponent moves and it all depends on the player himself. And in poker sometimes it also depends on luck.
 
Back
Top