… I see where they’re going with this, but I don’t agree. All you have to do is look back at Bobby Fisher who rarely if ever even looked at his opponent. Poker is about chance, chess is actual skill.
While poker does have a significant element of chance in a given hand, it's no accident that top players consistently make more money over the long run.
Knowing how much to bet based on your odds of winning a hand, figuring out what your opponent's hands could be based on how they're betting, etc. all take skill. There's a reason poker AI can consistently beat humans over the long run, a feat that would be impossible if poker was all about chance.
In fact, poker AI was a difficult area to create software in precisely because the game is one of imperfect information.
That's a good point about the cash game format.
But tournament format often forces players into multiple all-ins over the course of the tournament. This leads to a much more luck based outcome.
Has this actually been verified, at least in the modern era (last 10 or so years)? Yes, you see the same guys on TV and to a lesser extent, final-tabling multiple tournaments. But these guys are often on TV because they are entertaining, not necessarily great (or consistently-winning) players. They typically all have external sources of income (sponsorships, poker training, commentary, casino ambassador, company owners, etc) and most reduce volatility by buying and trading pieces of each others' action. In addition, for tournaments, some guys are able to simply enter way more events, which naturally leads to more final tables, but you're not seeing all the losses and bust outs.
All I'm saying is that it's not the same as the 70s through 90s where the skill gap was so huge that yes, certain players could (especially by going on the road and playing private games) absolutely dominate. I think winning consistently today is more of an illusion and some short-term luck.
Winning consistently today relies on being as close as you can to this "game-theory optimal" strategy. As skill gaps decrease chance certainly plays a larger role, but AI analysis of poker has indicated that there are ways to improve your odds and gain an edge.
It is decidedly not skill.
Physical "tells" are largely a myth in poker, particularly in high-level poker. Please don't speculate wildly on things with at most a novice-level understanding.
Poker on the other hand, by being random, means that you can mindlessly play the mathematically optimal strategy. Eventually your opponent will be put in a tough spot by pure randomness.
The difference is that chess is deterministic and poker is not. Chess skill means being able to forcefully convert a winning or drawing position. Poker skill means optimizing your chances of winning.
Not only is it possible to beat weaker opponents in chess by playing the best moves (contrary to your assertion), it happens all the time over the board. Weaker players are more likely to play moves that transforms the chess game from a win/draw to a draw/loss for them. There isn't a single human or engine alive that can consistently secure a draw against every opponent.
And it's possible for a poker player to mindlessly play the mathematically optimal move and still lose. Poker IS a game a chance, so they could just get unlucky.
"In that context, cheating scandals may be nothing less than a natural step in chess’s evolution. Poker, after all, has been rocked by allegations of foul play for years, including cases where players are accused of getting help from artificial intelligence. When the highest form of creativity is outfoxing your opponent—as has always been true of poker—breaking rules seems only natural."
I'm ruling this "clickbait" because while the core idea is reasonable, that is clearly a very weak way of phrasing it solely done to be in service of a clickbait title. Without the need for clickbait it's trivial to phrase that in a better way.
In the highest levels of chess, psychological fortitude and physical fitness are also important.
The whole idea in poker is to make the most right plays that on average should get you the win. Its management to chances.
There are no hidden information in chess, if you play better moves you will win.
And while there are factors that affect selection of best chess moves, you can hardly claim that the other guy got lucky.
Maybe you missed it. Humans are now using deceit to trick opponents trained by AI. While they may not "look at" their opponent, they are using similar strategies deployed in poker such as bluffing/misdirection/cloaking etc.
If this were true, then the recurrent Pocker champions must be the luckiest persons in the world, luck is undoubtedly an element, but there are many ways to influence other variables of the game.