Its chess/poker hybrid probably. I come form chess background too.

It's a combo of both for me

yeah more like chess for me.

it's really just what chess would be like if there were more than 2 people and talking was allowed.

diplomacy (i.e. negotiation) is more time consuming so it is at a natural disadvantage compared to the strategy/tactics side of the game for busy people comme moi..

alas. i am trying to be better about that.

I definitely come at it from a chess background, which is probably why I mainly stick to gunboats. It's more about the pure movement of the pieces.

I actually come at it from a totally different standpoint. I see it as a sort of abstract version of the Total War Games, albeit with much much much better diplomacy aspects. Although I do view it a bit like chess. But I really do prefer the good diplomacy round to a gun boat game.

it's like diplomacy! There are similarities to chess, and to poker, and to risk.

Actually, it is more like an advanced version of Draughts/Checkers but with extra players & the chance to negotiate & to out manouver the more skillful strategy players in the game.
I see no relation to poker, as everyone can see what you hold & what your options are! There is no bluffing or random luck of any consequence within the game.

@TLD: In face to face games you really need a pokerface :)
And there is a little bluffing involved when you tell people something is going to happen, when you're not all too sure it will. But you're right: all the cards are on the table and there is no luck of the draw.
Checkers yes, but I would say there is also some elements of Go in Diplomacy: area control, protecting borders and simple movement/placement rules.
Chess is _usually_ more dynamic, while dip can be kind of 'stuck', tactically.

in short: i agree with with Ora two posts up.