Originally Posted by ILLSIDED
I believe poker is more complex and requires more Analytical skill. More variations of the game, player types etc.
First off. Only people who have taken up both chess and poker seriously
should even be taking part in this poll. Anybody else is just being a retard. Why would they think their opinion could be meaningful otherwise?
Secondly, I'm not sure everyone taking part in this poll is interpreting the question being asked in the same way. Is poker more complicated? Probably. But that is not the poll question. Does poker require more analytical skill at the table? Certainly not! It is not even close.
I'm a chess master. I've played 2 chess games blindfolded—without sight of board and pieces. I did not find this too difficult and felt I could handle playing 3 blindfold games.
Now you think about that for a minute. Consider that most people have trouble recalling a new telephone number. That's just 7 digits. And yet I'm able to play 2 chess games blindfolded keeping track of the locations of 32 pieces on 64 squares in each of those 2 games. How am I able to do this? I have no idea. I have about as much trouble as the next guy in remembering a new telephone number.
My working memory, when it comes to chess is ginormous
. In other things, it is fairly normal. And that disparity is pretty incredible even to me.
Actually. The size of my working memory when it comes to chess is far greater than I've let on. Because if you had asked me right after I played those 2 blindfold games, to reproduce both games from start to finish, I would have been able to do so. Now the average length of a game is 50 moves from each of the 2 players. That's 100 ply
or equivalently 100 positions total. When you factor in the number of pieces and number of squares involved,... I'll let you do the math. How does that compare to recalling a new telephone number? Obviously, there is a huge difference.
Does poker have anything closely resembling this? No way!
In poker, good players do
make extensive use of their memory. They recall a lot of information, but this is mostly long term memory stuff they use for pattern recognition. Chess players do plenty of this too. But what I'm talking about is working memory
. You need a lot of working memory to do a lot of analytical thinking.
When I think about chess, I need to move the pieces around on the board in my minds eye to explore a tree of variations in order to decide on what move to play. In a particularly difficult position I might explore a tree of variations 20 moves (40 ply) deep with a dozen branches. That isn't extraordinary for a chess master. There simply isn't anything remotely like this in poker.
So how can poker be perhaps a more complicated game and yet require less analytical skill? The element of chance in poker blows up the number of possibilities to consider too much for the type of thinking used in chess to be useful. Unlike chess, this complexity can be tamed to a certain degree with mathematics, but few players including many top players do all that much of this while actually playing a hand. They rely heavily on their experience instead, which they mostly tap through their intuition. This is not analytical thinking. It's the opposite.
So to sum it up, anybody voting for poker: clueless. Most
people here voting for chess: lucky guess.