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.
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.