I believe it was in Annie Duke's "Thinking in Bets" that she demotes (?) chess as a life-like metaphor and instead says poker has a closer parallels. The crux

I believe it was in Annie Duke's "Thinking in Bets" that she demotes (?) chess as a life-like metaphor and instead says poker has a closer parallels. The crux of her argument is (if I recall correctly), at any given moment, chess has a finite number possible moves, and from those finite possible outcomes. Effectively, everything is know. On the otherhand, poker has unknowns (i.e., some cards remain hidden). In addition, you can - based on knowns - make good decisions and things can still go badly. That is the quality of the decision is not tied to the quality of the outcome.