No ure so wrong!!!

I really don't get the point of posting stuff like that without any clarification.

I see chess as harder to master, but the better player always wins, or almost always. There's no variance, unless you're drunk or something. There's no bluffing. Poker has luck, chess has zero luck. You can figure out chess. You can't figure out poker, just make decisions on information you know...but unlike chess, you are dealing with incomplete information, e.g., your opponent's cards.

IMO, it's easier to play a decent game of poker vs. anyone than it is to do for a chessplayer vs. a chessmaster. Poker, IMO, is more complex, but it's more complex for the poker pro as well.

Ask Harrington, or his coauthor, Robertie. They were both chess champs, then backgammon champs.

if u cant read the quote i provide from a strong player in chess , what other justification u need o0.... read it and understand cause i share his opinion as well ?

without any intend to insult u , i said ur so wrong because the way u think its obvious to me u dont really know chess at all, competively at the very least.

Would anyone be interested in a game of chess that involves luck?

It's played the same, but each piece has a specific %to win amount. Kings are 80%, queens are 70%, bishops 60% etc. Being the attacker gives you an automatic 20%, therefore an attacking king is 100% to win, while pawn attacking queen is a flip.

This could be done with some 10-sided dice. Anybody want to play? I just made up the numbers so they are probably extremely flawed. It wouldn't take the chess community very long to invent a nice balanced version.

I've played versions of chess that involve (some) luck, such as bughouse (I think that's a common name/variation) which involves 2 boards where your partner plays your opponent's partner. Your parter's captures can be placed on your board by you. There is strategy in the partnership but also some randomness. I've also played plenty of strategy games with high luck elements, usually they're quite fun to play.

Sounds great vezmus, brings back memories of Star Chess. You could take it a stage further and turn it into an MMORPG and grind gear for your pieces. "Your light squared bishop now has an extra 0.5% chance to win an attack".

This thread only demonstrate poker players has no brain.
If you put this same question in a chess forum. Youre not going to have 224 vs 155 votes. What youre gonna get there is 370-9 in favour of chess.

It isn't randomness that makes poker more complex than chess, its that players have access to different information. A game of chess with a fog of war would be complex. For example, each player can only see the contents of squares which are next to his own pieces. This would rival the complexity of poker.

That's more to do with chess players rarely playing poker while poker players often playing chess. In any case, there's no need to bring argumentum ad populum into this.

A chess like game with fog of war is "Stratego" though somewhat childish.



As I think about it, adding the fog of war to chess could go like this:

Each player would have to write down their intended next move, which would be binding, before their oppenent moves. The move would be binding UNLESS the opponents move makes the move illegal, in which case the player has the opportunity to make any other move.

I hereby call this "Somers delay chess"

It's for sure require several order of magnitude more of dedicated training to become say top 1000 player in the world in chess than in poker.
Also I think writing a program to beat humans at poker is easier than it is for chess. It's just that 1000x people less tried and one millionth of the time total was spent on it. Still computers are arguably better than humans at HU limit and according to all evidence beat 5/10 online 6max for millions of hands and huge winrate.
The thing is poker AI field is not as open as chess programming and therefore progress much slower.

if there was no variance games would not end like 12-10 but rather 22-0 right?