[chipclod]

to me it is a bit dangerous stereotyping games of "skill" versus games of "chance".

i prefer to liken chess as a convulted form of classical newtonian physics with absolute rules with limited possibilities yet still defined perameters. i see poker more a rudimentary form of quantum mechanics where the rules are defined by low grade probability.

a forced mate in four moves is not all that different then having the nuts on the turn.

in chess, most of the moves are some amalgamation of knowledge and understanding of the game ... however intuiton definately plays a part of the thinking process. i hope i get a sense of the type of moves or style of position that may get under my opponents skin. i certainly play the man especially when i am at crossroads in the position, that still makes sense over the board. this is more of an issue when your opponent is at a comparable ability as yourself.

the great distinction between the two, is that a master player will beat a beginner in chess probably say 999 or thousand times out of a thousand. In poker, the master player will win over a beginner but ... he will lose a share of hands because of the cards and bad beats.

the skill is seen only over time.