until this statement i actually thought you understood more about poker than about chess. Doesn't seem to be the case.

True, I actually know much more about chess than poker but that goes for just about everyone so nothing special there.. Durrrr knows more about chess than poker and he can't even win being spotted up a rook in chess game.

Ofcourse, since you don't know a thing about game theory as you have demonstrated over and over again it is clear why you are confused. You fail to realize complex games have more than one nash-equilbrium point meaning the solution is not singular.

I don't even know what the above paragraph is supposed to mean so nevermind.

OK, please enlighten me as to where previously played hands influence the nash equilibria for any given poker hand. And pls post something concrete, i've read Chen/Ankenman so don't treat me to more of this non-specific **** your postiong over and over.

Wow. It must be amazing to live in your world.

So how many hands do you need to play with a player until you are able to play optimally against him? Are you saying that without any history, you can not play correctly against an opponent (who, by the way, could not therefore play correctly against you)?

No, on your first hand you may play the hand a number of different ways.

Do you think the fact that my opponent has chosen Rock 45395843 times in a row changes the game-theory optimal solution to Roshambo?

Wait so your argument is that the reason that poker is more complicated than chess is because collusion is possible in poker? The obvious remedy is to simply consider headsup games so that multiple equilibria disappear.

Chess is more complex than poker, and it's not even close.

No, not at all. Nothing to do with collusion.

Further more, when calculating equilibrium you assume your opponet is practing perfect cheating anyways.. So the fact you brought up collusion only PROVES you have no clue about game theory at all.

No, ofcourse not. However, you are wrong if you think you can model poker by that game. Poker has mulitple equilibrum points while roshambo is a simple game and has only one. However this is a good example of exactly why you do not understand the complex nature of poker.

lol at this thread

Bah, stop wasting your time here and put of more chess videos of the US open. I keep checking this board looking for your updates and subsquently get suckered back into this thread.

Every round is on his site...

As a player of both games of "reasonable" skill, chess is clearly more
"complicated"; however, that is not to say that it is easier to find the
"optimal strategy" in poker than it is in chess. When one plays poker, the
decisions that are made need to be made in a matter of seconds ( most of
our opponents will probably not play with us if we routinely take more than
ten seconds! ). When one plays chess OTB, the decision to choose a move
can often take more than a few minutes, because as humans, when we
reach a chess position for the first time, we can only analyze so many lines
and analysis is not only time consuming, it can be very difficult. If we reach
"unfamiliar territory" in poker, we make the best of it and typically some of
us will only look at the situation much later after the session.

From Merriam-Webster online:
( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complicated )

com·pli·cat·ed
Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-plə-ˌkā-təd\
Function: adjective
Date: 1656
1 : consisting of parts intricately combined <a complicated recipe>
2 : difficult to analyze, understand, or explain <a complicated issue>
synonyms see COMPLEX


By definition 2) above, I'm quite sure that chess is more difficult to analyze,
understand and explain. A good friend of mine mentioned that it's much
easier to get an average person off the street to play "winning poker" (say
a simple form such as limit draw) after a few days than it is to get them to
play "winning chess" ( say against players rated very weakly from about 1100
to 1500 ) after a few days; sure, for NLHE, it's much more complicated and
there's nobody out there that plays "perfectly". Stretch out the time frame
to about a year and the chess player still has a "mountain of theory" to
learn, needs some more practice on tactics and endgames, has accumulated
data on games of his regular opposition, not to mention all the "significant"
games of GMs and IMs in the last year, i.e., the chess player still has
decades of learning a significant amount of material; poker doesn't compare
because it's simply not the same kind of game.

Suppose you're "uber-serious" in chess: you'd be looking at openings and
critical positions that were reached almost every day; and if you face some
opponents on a regular basis, probably analyze their games and openings too.
In poker, even if you're "uber-serious", you'd look into exploiting opponent's
mistakes but the analysis is nowhere as "complicated". Why do world class
chess players have a team of seconds whereas world class poker players
don't hire an analagous team?

Maybe if we have some exceptional poker players ( that are trying to play
chess "well") chime in to get some more opinions, that could help "settle the
matter". I pretty much agree with Jerrod Ankenman:

Thats why I see poker as far more complicated than chess. In chess is easier to see which areas required analyze while in poker the game is so complex many can not even comprehend/percieve areas that require analyze so they continue day after day making the same mistake over and over having no clue they are in fact failing miserably. They see no tatics and stratagy where there plenty and continue to fail again and again while thinking they are playing correctly.

In chess when you make is mistake it is far more transparent. In poker players blunder over and over again doing the same donkish mistakes again and again some for 20 years plus never having a clue they are making fatal mistakes the game is poker is far too complex for comprehension for many people.

Chess being an easier game than poker to learn, analyze and comprehend which leads to have more material to learn. The more material to learn often cause people to incorrectly assume it is more complicated.


Let me put is this way. The complexity of chess is like adding and subtracting combinations of integers between one and one hundred. A chess situation in complexity is like have to 7-45+33+75-22-15-67+47+52-12.... for each addition number add of subtract you increase in your likely hood of making the correct play. The complication the operations of the task is simple, everyone can add and subtract, however the task is extremely tedeous.

Poker is like being handed a high order nonlinear differintial equations and being told to solve it. Thee majority of the population will look at the problem and not even understand what they are looking at. A fewer group will know enough to recognize what they are looking but have no means to solve the problem. While the best of us knows how to break down the general equation into parts and make reasonable assumptions that allow us solve some parts of the problem in some special situations in somewhat reasonable approximation techniques while most of the problem remains completly unsolved.

In summations, Chess is by far more simple game but is extremely tedous requiring simple skills applied over and over again.

Poker is by far more complex in terms of higher level skills required to solve the problem but is less tedous.

Your arguments aren't right. They're not even wrong.

Whoever writes the longest response I declare the winner.

The longest response. GG.

Eeney meeney miney mo, pick a facepalm by the toe.

ok, so this is going to be my first post, so I'll make it a good one. I love Chess, but poker is still more complicated. For Chess in every situation, there's a "correct" move to make, where correctness is defined by the success ratio that move has for you. Keep making the most correct moves as white, and you should always win, unless you put yourself in a spot where black makes you make a bad move and steal the lead(a spades/big deuce term which has more to do with Chess than given credit for). I am basically saying how basic chess is because there is an "ideal" way to play it, and that's why we match up Russian geniuses against our latest computers to see who wins- man or bot? Historically, it's been pretty close overall, but I believe bot has beat man more often.

Now in poker- you can make the ideal play and still lose, whether you have the lead or not. Limit poker reduces the variance, but s*** still happens. People may program bots or use software/ websites which some players may consider cheating or unethical, but in the long run, it still hasn't been shown how effectively this stuff really works. A computer does not have a gut, and you need a darn gut in poker. You don't need one in chess, its systematic.

I'm an avid Chess player, and I take more time making decisions in a game of it than I do in a hand of Poker, but ultimately, POKER IS MORE COMPLICATED.

And my bit of ignorance to leave you wanting to argue back if your still not with me- THE %77 PERCENT OF YOU that voted for Chess are idiots and you didn't think about it. Your all poker players, and not to undermine anybody, most of the voters don't even play Chess(although they probably do know how to).

D-

Compelling argument!

I'm puzzled by the claim that in any position in chess, there is "ONE CORRECT MOVE" but in poker the correct move is very opponent dependent. I mean, if you "know how your opponent plays" in chess, why wouldn't you make suboptimal plays in order to exploit him? I mean, when a computer evaluates the "best" move in chess, it supposes that the opponent will play the best response lines from that point forward. But that's a stupid assumption; even GMs blunder from time to time.

And suppose you've gotten into a poor position, and the computer says that the "best" move is something or other, which gives you drawing chances but zero winning chances. But there is some other move, a subtle trap that can give you a win but if your opponent sees it you are certainly lost. Poker players would surely claim that playing for the win is right "if they have a read," but I suspect this is not true of chess players.

OK, I have an opinion about why this is. Chess has undergone tremendous analysis and this analysis is available to regular people and so they've accepted what the computers say as right, just as in backgammon. Poker hasn't, and most of the work that has been done isn't available to regular people, and so they persist in their idea that playing suboptimally to exploit is "better" than playing "the best move" assuming their opponent will play well from here on out.

Jerrod, I think a better explanation of this is that people are not really considering their opinions too much. And any strong chess player is obviously aware that there are countless situations where you may intentionally make a less than optimal move, or the fact that give 10 different GM's the same position and if it's not a forcing position you'll likely hear a variety of different ideas.

I think the main difference is chess requires precision, poker requires alot of educated guesses and estimation.

In most positions, there's more than 1 objectively correct move. In the opening position, at least 12 moves clearly don't lose, and quite possibly all of them don't lose. Most of the skill in a chess game is making objectively drawn moves that give you the biggest chance of winning in the end (since any position is either White Wins, Black Wins, or Draw with best play- the concept of "an advantage" is a human construction- you're either winning or you're not). Or, as Anand put it,

These days I understand there are two kinds of equal positions - equal positions you like to play and equal positions you can't stand the sight of. – Viswanathan Anand

Playing suboptimally to exploit- if you do it right- is better in chess and in poker. I've adjusted openings and plans to take advantage of what my opponent sucked at, and better players have done the same to me.

lol @ curtains longest response the winner. Nh

Serious post:

Lock this thread.

Should have been locked after 5 posts.