Compare/Contrast Poker vs. Chess

[Reef]

Compare and contrast poker versus chess. Whether it be strategy, theory, psychology, etc..

I'll start. In chess, there can be a forced mate in exactly 4 moves. Playing this sequence will not cause you to be mated first. This play is ALWAYS right whether you're against Bobby Fischer or a newbie. In chess, we play the board. In poker, a bet against one person may be correct, but completely wrong against another. In poker, we play the person.

This is just a generalization, but you get the point

~Reef

[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.

[jaeon]

in game and system theory, chess is considered a game of complete information and poker is not. also, poker is an open system (due to the element of chance) and chess is a closed system. throw in its psychological/spiritual elements and poker is probably the closest model of real life systems that we have, which is why i believe it to be the ultimate game...well at least the ultimate zero-sum game. real life is rarely zero-sum, so that's where the model sorta breaks down.

[BillUCF]

Chess is by far a more difficult game to master than Hold'em or any other poker game. Once you get to the midgame in chess and are thinking 4-6 moves ahead you have dozens of options to choose from. In poker you only have 5 options (bet,check,fold,raise, or call)

[goofball]

for a human, anyway.

[jaeon]

exactly.

[Louie Landale]

Actually, based on what I've heard (and believe), there is quite a bit of opponent-strategy in Chess. You do things to one person that you would never do against another.

But yes, your statement is generally true.

- Louie

[nightlyraver]

A forced mate in 4 moves? OK, I pretty much suck at chess compared to real players - how do you mate in 4?

Thanks!

[Reef]

check out a tactics workbook and look at the advanced section

[jason1990]

Usually "forced mate in 4 moves" means that no matter what your opponent does, he will be checkmated in 4 moves or less. With this understanding, there is no forced mate in 4 moves from the starting position. I guess Reef is referring to the Scholar's mate: 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nc6 3 Qf3 d6 4 Qxf7 mate. This is not a forced mate for White, since Black can make a different set of moves that prevents this. In fact, if Black allows White to get to the third move in this sequence before blocking it with, say, 3...Nf6, then White's queen will be exposed and Black can gain a great advantage in development by attacking the queen. So, I guess, trying for this 4 move mate is a "gamble". If it works, you win. If it doesn't, you may develop a disadvantage. There is some probability it will work, which you must estimate if you're going to attempt it. Hmm...maybe chess and poker have a lot in common after all. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]