It would be much more interesting to poll mathematicians, game theorists, computer scientists (especially those involved in AI and games), etc.

Another problem is that people compare

One NLHE hand vs Chess match

Poker HU match that for instance PS does with isildur is like 2500 hands each
And to the poster above: I think you would be tired from a match like that as well.

I thought it interesting to look at the different modes of reasoning and how they apply to each game... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning
Deduction, Induction, Abduction... Among these, I would rate them from most to least complex (or from higher level thinking to lower level thinking) as:
(1) Induction
(2) Abduction
(3) Deduction

Now, when we play games, we are thinking in essentially two contexts:
Tactics or strategy

I think it's fair to say that basically:
Tactical reasoning = Deduction
Formulating Strategies = Induction and Abduction


A primary difference between human and computer intelligence is that humans find enumerating long lists of deductive conclusions to be mentally tiring. But this is essentially what we are doing when we analyze chess positions through a game tree. It is a simple task, but tedious.

On the other hand, induction and abduction is where human minds really excel past computers (especially induction). I can show a single picture of a dog to a young child, and say "This is a Dalmation", and instantly that child will be able to recognize all future instances of Dalmations he sees. Computers can't do this kind of thing. It is an extremely complex task to categorize information the way people do, but we tend to take this ability for granted.

Chess strength is predominantly dominated by one's ability to reason tactically, to "see things" far in advance. Chess is heavy on tactics and relatively light on strategy. The position evaluation function in chess computer programs is representative of a strategy. The fact that GMs have been able to write out position evaluation functions by hand, resulting in very strong chess programs, kinda proves that there's not *all* that much information contained within a chess strategy... GMs have stumbled upon their strategies through very strong inductive ability. While induction abilities are important to formulate chess strategies, it is *not* as important to play chess and not even to learn chess (I can read a book and use somebody else's strategy; I don't need to formulate my own)... Through the course of the game, chess players are primarily using deductive reasoning, the mode of reasoning that is at the lowest level of complexity/intelligence.

Rote memorization also greatly improves chess strength. A strong player must remember all sorts of openings and variations. Yeah, it's a lot of work for people to do this, but I don't consider memorization tasks to be "complex".

Poker, on the other hand, is almost all strategy and very little in the way of tactics. Can any top poker players write out, by hand, an EV function approximating the value of any position? Absolutely not! There are way too many variables to consider. So, the information contained within a poker strategy is a lot bigger than what's contained within a chess strategy.

In order to play poker well and exploitatively, you must use all modes of reasoning through a game - deduction, induction, and abduction... Yes, poker is light on the tedious and mentally tiring deduction tasks that chess requires, but it is heavy on the more complex forms of reasoning that we have so much difficulty programming computers to do.

I have to point out that in chess induction is commonly used as well. Some examples are generalizing rules of movement to several different pieces at different positions, turns etc. Also, good players can recognize similar following patterns by the similarity of board positions, which would be inductive reasoning.

I agree about how you rated the different ways of logical reasoning according to their complexity. However i would say that induction is fundamentally based on deduction.. If A then B. For example, the ball has fallen every time i dropped it. Then maybe it will fall every time i drop it in the future as well. It's like you create connection between A and B, but A and B are already connected to more nodes. Thus learning new information means connecting one node at the time.

Agreed, and yet this argument keeps being brought up.

The fact is a decent amateur is going to win against Phil Ivey about 40% of the time - maybe 30% if you're feeling generous. An amateur chess player is NEVER going to get a lucky match against a grandmaster.

In high stakes NL on this forum the reason top pros can often not agree on the correct move in a hand is not because the complexity is at such a high level that a super genius player is that much smarter than just a 'regular' genius, it's because there are just so many variables that it becomes almost impossible to assign "right" in many circumstances. And while this may seem a function of complexity, it's the equivalent to trying to analyze a coin perfectly to determine whether or not it will land heads or tails.

Knowing the shape, size, muscle strength of the flipper etc MAY improve your chances of guessing the coin's result correctly, but it would be a mistake to label the practice of coin flipping 'more complex', even if it would take a super computer to accurately guess it.

Or maybe it actually is more complex.

I don't know what do you mean by 'winning' but I am guessing a random hand. That is like saying that I might take out one piece when playing Kasparov as a 'win'. Or scoring a goal in a soccer match (seen matches where team A scored the first goal and then ended up losing 7-1)

A HU poker match is ~2.5k hands (Could be different though this is what PS challenges use)

Don't get me wrong Poker is still a lot more random than most other skill activities (Even though even Barcelona regularly loses to some worse teams in their league) but I doubt that any amateur would be able to beat Isildur1 over 2,5k hands. The chance would be significantly higher though than an amateur beating Karpov at chess

The way professional poker players view winning is outplaying your opponent. It's not the result but theoretical EV, which cannot be measured. If I'm outplaying my opponent but he runs well and beats me, I consider myself to have won, as I'm making better decisions. Obviously this is a big difference in poker and chess, the luck factor. However if you think about the game theoretically an amateur will very rarely be making better decisions or "winning" they'll just appear to be. If they do somehow make a better decision that's not what is important. What's important is why did they make that decision. Players can make the right play for the wrong reasons which ultimately makes it the wrong play overall. At the highest level what matters is thinking at a high level and for the right reason in basically every hand.

Poker is a game in which even if you know your opponents exact hand, you cannot make the perfect decision. Think about that...

Simple answers here CHESS....LOL to Many analysts ITT

i think it's like comparing battleship with tank army

As an avid player of both, I believe poker and chess require different skill sets.

With (live) poker, it is a lot more important to analyze your competitors and try to gain a psychological advantage where possible.

Chess requires a lot more memory. The best players DO analyze their opponents previous games and playing styles, but your advantage comes from being carefully aggressive on the chess board.

Also, with chess one bad move can easily decide the outcome.

My opinion is chess requires a lot more study. Poker requires study plus having that "natural" ability to read a situation.

Chess is a solved game. Like Checkers. The luck factor simply isn't a part of these games. The luck factor is always a part of the game in Poker.

In my opinion, if we look at it a simplistic way: a chess player will only be a Grand Master if he has a big IQ while there are lot of not so smart poker players that are profitable.

Chess is a game that only very intelligent people will win, while that is not necessarily truth in Poker - nowadays software influences a great deal of the decisions making in online poker.

Lots of interesting posts itt.

Few things to consider:
- if a complete beginner learned chess and played/studied for 10 hours a day for a year, the level they would attain would be significantly less than someone doing the same thing with poker;
- however it is arguable that it's easier to get better at poker faster than chess, not because of the amount of information available but because of the number of games able to be played simultaneously online.
- the amount of time it would take to become a top 500 in the world chess player far exceeds the amount of time it would take to be a top 500 in the world poker player (even if there was a way to calculate this)

From a perspective of what level of complexity is needed to be an elite player chess wins this poll imo. The game of poker might be more complex (cause its imperfect info) but If imperpect info is an argument than every kitchentable cardshedding game is more complex than chess. Scrabble is more difficult to play absolutely perfect etc.

Chess is not solved and imo being a genius might even help you more at poker, look at Stu. He was able to 'solve' card games within hours and totally dominated NLHE. He won like 40% of the tournaments he attended.

BTW: All these IQs are estimations, I'd be surprised if Kasparov had higher IQ than 150. Fischer was bad at school.(at pretty much every subject when he was a teenager) This certainly does not tell you much but if he was a truly 187 IQ genius, he'd be better.