From a game theoretical standpoint, which game is deeper: chess or poker?

Poker, any computer can play chess perfectly, but theres no algorithm to play optimal poker

Deeper in what sense?

Chess is in some aspects very shallow. Just apply minimax deep enough and you win or draw.

A huge competent of chess is memorisation. The rest is calculation and some amount of creativity.

It's a typical scenario where learning to play is easy but mastering the game is hard because it simply requires a whole lot of time investment.

I don't know anything about Poker so cannot say anything about the game.

>Hands vary by chance in poker, however, so it's not possible to force-win every game.
it's not about "winning" a given hand

you "win" by betting spots where you have higher equity / EV than your opponent or by forcing your opponent to incorrectly forfeit their equity

You're talking about scenarios of card combinations in hand and on table? But the complexity from no fixed limit games (i.e no limit texas holdem) comes from the the betting, hence why deep stack poker is way more complex than short stack and more edge can be derived.

As a decent-ish player of both chess and NLHE, I'd say poker has way deeper elements to it.

>I personally would define the depth of a game as how difficult it is to achieve perfect or near-perfect play, where "difficulty" could mean computational complexity, or some such.

This is easy to define in chess, but in poker the perfect play varies with so many factors, so much so that what people call "game theory optimal" play, is often not even the best play.

Chess refers to one game (not counting variants like fischer random) whereas poker refers to hundreds of games, some having very little in common, so no comparison can be made really.

Definitely chess. Poker is little more than a shallow betting game when compared to chess.

Poker is a game of luck, how can chess even compete?

this misconception stems from the mistake of comparing a hand of poker to a game of chess

instead, define "winning poker" as "maintaining a consistent, positive win-rate over millions of hands against a wide field of players and the rake"

In your head you see betting as unscrupulous behavior or something similar and thus can't see it as taking much intelligence or having much complexity, am I right?
Because poker has variance it may give the illusion of not being too complex, but really it has way more depth than chess.

It's a game of luck, but deep stacked nlhe is more skill than luck.

>nlhe
What does that stand for?

no limit holdem

pokerbooks.lt/books/en/The_Mathematics_of_Poker.pdf

no chess book has ever looked this complex.

Maybe because it involves a shitload of psychobabble? Didn't read.

>tfw chose computer science just so I can get a job in the northwest and acquire an Asian gf

Poker.

A complete model of a poker game requires modeling the pyschology, or at least the tendencies of the players you are playing with, which adds immense complexity.

With chess you can pretty much just play the board in front of you. Guessing what moves your opponent will make can help somewhat, but typically there are optimal moves which are optimal regardless of your opponents response, so modeling their behavior won't help you much.

>I didn't read it but let me tell you what it's about!

Dopey cunt.

Chess was cracked by computers way before poker, so the answer is obvious, poker is deeper.

This, though it depends on precisely what OP meant by "deeper". If he meant that it's harder to make a computer learn how to play it effectively, or that it has elements that are difficult to model, then poker wins.

Poker isn't just luck, especially since the best poker players in the world tend to stay the best for a long time. If poker were entirely luck, poker tournaments would not be as big as they are - no one holds roulette or chance betting tournaments, but they do hold poker tournaments

Tbf there are more poker players who play at the level of reading the other persons' psyche, but at grandmaster levels chess is as much about reading the other persons intentions and hidden - metaphorical - cards as any poker players face.

Assuming there's an optimum move - and more, that you're going to find it - is chump-level chess. Best you can do is see a optimum move 3-6 moves off, or its potential, and work to bring it about without tipping off the other player.

Only because no self respecting world class poker player would play a machine. Because they'd lose, and lose badly.

On that note, ""poker"" machines.

every hand in poker is always 50:50 you either win or lose

poker, for it has the element of "bluff", giving it a layer of psychology--which chess lacks as it is a completely autistic game

he doesn't mean video poker

kek

If by "cracked" he's saying the point at which a computer could beat the best humans in the world, he's pretty ass backwards on that.

You'd have to make a computer retarded to not be able to beat the best humans in the world with a fraction of the programming cost of deep blue, a truism from well before chess was cracked.

Probably chess, if we are talking about complexity.

Chess is infinite: There are 400 different positions after each player makes one move apiece. There are 72,084 positions after two moves apiece. There are 9+ million positions after three moves apiece. There are 288+ billion different possible positions after four moves apiece. There are more 40-move games on Level-1 than the number of electrons in our universe. There are more game-trees of Chess than the number of galaxies (100+ billion), and more openings, defences, gambits, etc. than the number of quarks in our universe! --Chesmayne

Probably more unique spots in no limit holdem poker.

Choker.

Literally ANY turn based strategy game nowadays is thousands of times more complex than those two. And I've made thousands and thousands playing poker, can't bother to keep going cause it's boring and I earn more money investing.

*Tips Menorah*

>unironically being this retarded

It's ok, you can still play your league of legends. But don't come here to spout complete bullshit.

>he still thinks luck exists
LMAO

Poker relies on luck. Chess doesn't. Therefore, chess is the deeper game.

>luck
Stop this meme already. I thought this board was filled with """"""""""""""smart""""""""""""" people.

How did you even solve the captcha?

Keep poking Eris like that and I will unleash Kallisti on this planet again.

>Not using uncertainty to earn money through poker

Not gonna make it, stick to political studies and arts.

Number of possible configurations doesn't really tell you the depth. Possible moves does.
In Texas Hold'em you have two possible moves, bet or fold. You get dealt two cards, you bet or fold, then there are three cards (then four then five) in the middle with the same set of possible moves each time. If you ever fold you're out, so the the total number of possible games is 5 (fold on 2, 3, 4, 5 or don't fold). There are 9 zillion possible configurations that can appear because of chance and number of players but the players only choose between 5 games.
Chess has only one configuration but lots and lots of possible moves, don't know how many but definitely more than 5.

Fine, chance then. Is your pedantry pleased now?

>Chess was cracked by computers

Is there anywhere to play poker against bots for free without the registration bullshit?

damn you're a huge fucking retard

Nice argument.

How about Mahjong and 4-D tic tac toe?

It's not known. Kinda.
Chess is a perfect information zero sum combinatoric game. Thus there exists a strategy where one player always wins. We don't know which player has this strategy. Look up game theory.

Chess, more possibile states than any 52/5 permutation of cards could generate

Just because you have to guess doesn't make it harder
In fact, the guessing factor only means you can generalize assumptions more

poker

chess is incredibly boring normie pseudointellectual shit

>Literally ANY turn based strategy game nowadays is thousands of times more complex than those two.
this

Tetris.

> Tetris is Hard: An Introduction to P vs NP
> [warning: pdf link]
cs.jhu.edu/~susan/600.363/tetris.pdf

> Tetris is Hard, Even to Approximate
> […] We prove that in the offline version of Tetris, it is NP-complete to maximize the number of cleared rows, maximize the number of tetrises (quadruples of rows simultaneously filled and cleared), minimize the maximum height of an occupied square, or maximize the number of pieces placed before the game ends. We furthermore show the extreme inapproximability of the first and last of these objectives to within a factor of p^(1-epsilon), when given a sequence of p pieces, and the inapproximability of the third objective to within a factor of (2 - epsilon), for any epsilon>0. Our results hold under several variations on the rules of Tetris, including different models of rotation, limitations on player agility, and restricted piece sets.
arxiv.org/abs/cs/0210020

Literally what? The complexity is derived from the betting and the card combinations, thus way more depth than chess.

I remember some console poker games, you should ask /vr/, but I bet you can defeat the machine eventually every single time.

>Thus there exists a strategy where one player always wins.

wins or draws. important difference

> but I bet you can defeat the machine eventually every single time
how much you wanna bet? Yknow the best headsup players only win about 54% of games.

Go. Then chess, then poker.

>Go
That game is literally too hard for me. I have never won a single game. Any tips?

>Look up game theory.

Hilarious end to a post that is completely incorrect

q3a

>but in poker the perfect play varies with so many factors,

This is a distortion--the primary difficulty of the game is correctly recognizing the psychology of the opponent and successfully calling their bluffs. Whether that makes the game "deeper" is subjective, because it relies much more heavily on human factors that aren't really about rigorous thinking.

Game depth is relative to total amount of possible game states. Bet sizes is what makes Hold 'em so deep, just one more chip on any game state technically means a new game state.

Save your lucky eggs until you can do a lot of evolutions at once, that way you can level up quicker.

define the "deepness function" in a game theoretical setting

Poker because it relies less on math and more on reading people. Chess is a shallow as tic-tac-toe.

>How does this make the game "deeper"?

Because of the interaction with another human being. Are you autistic?

Chess relies on the luck of coming up with/spotting a winning sequence in time. It offers complete information, true, but no human can process it all. On the other hand, games like Texas Hold'em are simply enough that a human can oversee all available information. Unlike in chess, he's able to choose optimal strategies.

Basically, humans can maximize the influence of skill within the context of the rules of poker, but not within the context of the rules of chess.

Nah, you're extremely limited by the number of cards when you come to probability comparatively speaking of course.

>what is game theory?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo's_theorem_(game_theory)

Read what you linked to, it says "wins or draws".

So no, it's not known whether the first player has winning strategy (or at least that doesn't prove it).

Moreover, it says one of the two players, so even if we ignore stalemates it could be that the second player has the winning strategy (always wins).

>From a game theoretical standpoint, which game is deeper: chess or poker?
>Poker, since you don't have complete information.

I would agree with this, simply because we at least know how to find optimal chess moves, even if it requires massive cpu time and memory space. A naive, recursive algorithm could be written by most comp sci grads to solve chess. And if you're talking about 'john nash' game theory, there is none for optimal chess.

Poker, which involves the possibility of bluffing falls inline with game theory. So there is automatically more depth in that sense. 'Perfect play' would require integrating all knowledge gained by all hands witnessed, in a way that is most likely to, but will not always, lead to the best outcome.

No, we have not yet calculated it, and as others have pointed out with so many permutations; we're probs a long way off.

However the ultimate point is that there is theoretically a "perfect game" in which both players would play the statistically best move at every turn, leading to the exact same outcome every time. I'm not saying whether this is constitutional to a "deeper" game than poker, I'm just stating that it is a solvable problem.

I apologise.

I thought the question was "how is it known that chess is solvable". I didnt read that was a mug and asserted that white is guaranteed to win every time.

bahahaha

"if the game cannot end in a draw"
read your own links mate

this

retard

I should also note that poker is a set of games within a game. In optimal chess, both players must play the same game--find optimal moves. In poker, the opponents can implement any strategy and decide to change that strategy at any time, so part of the problem is to decipher what the most likely current strategy is for each player. And if you don't adjust your own strategy, another player can decipher yours.

>Chess was cracked by computers

It's not all about bluffs, you play different vs different opponents based on their ranges. Playing tag regs at low stakes, you can almost assume they aren't ever bluffing for instance.

Who is koreaboo poster?

Probabilistic != no optimal strategy that can be learned

I have a brainlet question, how complex are FPS shooters like CoD, Battlefield, Halo, Titanfall, Counter-Strike, etc.? Can you theoretically win every game by using a strategy? It depends on the map too.

You havn't really defined deeper

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City

Chess is a perfect information game. If you've solved chess perfect play is possible. One solved it becomes Tic-Tac-Toe.

For Poker you can play the Nash Equilibrium, but your information is limited and other players can bluff or use counter-strategies. If an opposing player knows you're playing Nash Equilibrium they can use your decisions against you.

Therefore from a Game Theory position Poker is more interesting.

Number of Poker hand distributions is not comparable to the number of valid (reachable in game) chess positions.

A hand of Poker is independent from the next hand (assuming shuffling), while chess always starts from the starting position (with 20 possible starting moves), each move is a progression of the last. Implying that the vast majority of valid chessboard states are sub-optimal choices for one or both players.

>white player in a chess game can win every game they play
Not proven. Three choices are possible:

>White can win every time even if Black plays perfectly
>White can draw every time if Black plays perfectly
>White will always lose if Black plays perfectly

Your assumption might be correct, but it isn't proven.

Roulette is a game against the house. Players have only the independent result of the wheel and known odds and all players have the same information.
Poker is competitive with players all having different and incomplete information. Players observe each other to infer what kind of cards their opponent might have.

>positive win-rate
It is not your winrate, it is positive cash flow.

You can lose 99 hands and win 1 hand and have positive cash flow by limiting your losses and maximizing gains.

>didn't read
>dismisses practical psychology and game theory

>slot machine "video poker" is poker
kys

>Not gonna make it, stick to political studies and arts.
>political
I'm laughing at the certainty of the polls this last election. Especially when the "we were wrong" part is explained that low probability things happen, (aka chance/luck).