Chess vs. bridge

Chess is a better game than bridge surely? What are your opinions..

A bit of info: Most chess players stay put and few "defect" to bridge as a career . The only famous exception is Irina Levitina, and she has been quite successful at that.

So... Chess is better

HERE is an article I wrote on Levitina, Bridge and Chess about 6 years ago.

here chessmicky, so you ARE saying that chess is better than bridge? It's hard to say

I play both.  I'm an Expert in chess, Bronze Life Master in bridge.

They are 2 completely different games.  You screw up in chess, it's your own fault.  Bridge requires accurate play by two players.  You mess up, your pair messes up.  Your partner messes us, your pair messes up.

Chess, on a loss, loses you rating points.  Bridge you either gain points or get nothing.  Once you have them, you can't lose them.  So some "Life Masters" are only life masters due to frequent play, and aren't very good.  I play sparringly, and am still under 200 Master Points away from Silver Life Master.

In some ways, the games are extremely similar.  Chess has opening theory, Bridge has bidding conventions.  Chess has simple tactics like the fork and complex tactics like the windmill.  Bridge has simple tactics like the finesse and very complex tactics like the squeeze play, or even worse, the double squeeze or triple squeeze.  I have only "conciously" executed the simple squeeze, though I may have executed a double or triple squeeze and not even knew it!

Both involve a ton of deductive reasoning.  In bridge, if there are 2 hearts left, and one of them is the Queen, it's doubtful that the odds of one defender having the Queen versus the other is 50/50.  If you pay attention to their leads and their conventions (like maybe opening lead of 4th best from longest and strongest suit against No Trump), and with the carding signals from the previous tricks, you might be able to nail with certainty that East has the Queen of hearts rather than West, even though neither East nor West has shown out in Hearts, and trapping that Queen might be necessary to make your Four Spades contract, just like how Yusupov had a game in 1983 where the only winning move was a Queen Sacrifice on move 18 (18.Qxh5).

You can't say one is better or worse than the other.

sorry chessmicky, I'm not really following what you're saying..from what you're saying it would appear that bridge is just wholly lacking in fun or have I gone a bridge too far? could be wrong though!!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_a46WJ1viA

A study conducted on Stockbrokers on WallStreet revealed that the most sucessful were avid cardplayers as oposed to Chess players as they were more used to calculated risk,don't listen to that spaz lincoln

Here Lincoln92 do we have to keep f**cking repeating ourselves?? Are you stupid or something, stop being a f*ck, am I right chessmicky?

why do you have to do this on all my posts brazzer? chessmickey was happy to have this debate so I dont know why you have to come in like a complete little p***ck and think you can speak for him. I'm sure chessmickey will happily reply to what I was asking

brazzers*

bazzer* sorry

Chess is harder than bridge.  Bridge has many rules and if you have a bit of luck  with the right hand (good hight cards) is good, chess is no luck is training and study. The Chess players who  changed to bridge were great player in bridge . example : Lasker,Capablanca,  Irina Levitina (former women chamion)  Petr Lee, Mark Horton and many others.

Hello,

           When I was in Mexico, they had a saying "Sobre gustos no hay disgustos" or "Sobre putas no hay disputas" I also heard it spoken.  In other words there can be no sensible arguments about mere TASTE.  If instead you had argued about checkers and chess . . . well, those are both individual games of tactics and strategy with zero luck involved . . . so clearly chess is the better game, meaning the more challenging and interesting and varied game.  If you argue about Othello (Reversi) and chess -- again you can have a sensible argument because both are individual tactics and strategy games with zero luck involved.  But chess and bridge cannot sensibly be argued because bridge is a card game played in partnership and a huge amount of luck is involved in playing each episodic hand (akin to rounds in boxing; quarters in basketball or American football; or innings in baseball or cricket) which is only part of the end result.  The two games, bridge and chess, couldn't be any more different in the games concept than a sabre-tooth tiger and a lily pad are in the living-things concept.  It's all a matter of preferences . . . and preferences are valid in themselves whenever objective comparison is not valid.

   Good luck, happy chess to you.

   Bob

I play both. Like both games. 

Bridge has a major drawback compared to chess: you need to find 3 other people to play. 

Other than this, it is a great game...

I imagine it would take many, many hours of practice and reading to become passable. I've spent a few hours on bridge already and I still can't even play the game. All these stupid bidding systems... pass! The fact that you need a partner also damages the dynamic of it for me. To do it right you'd have to schedule games, you'd have to interact with people in a way I'd rather do without.

Every time I tried to play a card game like Spades, it just seemed to me that you'd simply follow the main rules, mechanically follow a few tips, and that was all there was to it.   

No two-player card game seems to be intensively studied and have a very high reputation, so I don't play any card games. 

Try Cribbage, Piquet ?