[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker and chess really don't have anything in common. In chess you can win (draw) by always playing the best move and this best move (usually) does exist. You don't have to adapt to the opponent at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I beg to differ!

Once you're 10 or 12 moves into a chess game, there's usually no consensus about the "best" move. There are multiple "lines" at your choosing that will take you into different kinds of middle games. (Somewhat similar to poker.) Chess pundits are arguing constantly about the merits of these different lines, and most of the arguments aren't fully settled. If you and your opponent are reasonably close in skill, you want to head into a line that plays to your strengths and exploits his shortcomings.

In chess: Are you the better tactician? Look for something sharp and double-edged that may let you close in for the kill within a dozen moves.

Are you better at slow positional struggles? Keep the position closed and try to outmaneuver your opponent over 40 moves.

Who's got more/less time on the clock? This has intriguing parallels to stack sizes in poker. If you've got more time in chess, you want to keep the position as complex as possible. Let the other guy make a mistake in time pressure. If you're tight on time, look for ways to simplify until you're into an endgame that plays itself.

Overall, I'd say reading opponents is 30% of what shapes your decisions in chess and a higher percentage in poker. So you're right on your second point that poker is a harder game for computers to master. But unlike checkers -- where computers really have established the best moves in most situations -- chess still has a good bit of room left for human judgment.

[/ QUOTE ]

NH

Related to your tactician / positional play point. Initiative in chess is the counterpart to aggressive play in poker. Also, different styles (super-aggressive / gambiteer, conservative / positional grinder) are apparent in both games. Good players can win in both games with different styles.

Like poker moves, chess moves can be analyzed post-mortem. In the heat of battle, finding the best move can be easy (betting a nut, delivering checkmate) or difficult (lead out or checkraise, advance or regroup, etc.) Sometimes, what you think is a really good moves turns out to be a lemon in post-mortem, even in chess.

I would argue that stack size is the counterpart to material in chess, but I found your clock analogy interesting.

Bluffing could equate with sacrificing material in attack. If you make your opponent fold or your opponent doesn't find the right defense, then you look like a genius. If he calls you down or does find the right line, goat.

ScottieK