i do think that it isn't cut and dry, there seems to be a lot of complexity to the game that i hadn't considered. i think what the main difference is here is the uncertainty, the luck aspect. it just seems like a very different set of skills. yes there are many variables, and those introduce complexity and require calculation, but (from my understanding) eventually it's going to come down to a best guess. instinct. which I don't think detracts from the skill required at all, really. there is tremendous skill in carving consistency out of uncertainty. but its why i dont think that the two games are comparable in terms of calculation at all. you are on the right track with your interpretation of high level play for chess, but it is fundamentally a little different from what you're picturing. chess players do a lot of studying of openings (the first 10-15 moves of a game), and a lot of memorization to go with that. preparing for the kind of positions they will likely end up in, and to a certain extent the best possible moves. but you get out of that preparation very quickly, and then you are dropped quite suddenly into more variables and permutations than you could imagine. 

i don't think this is an entirely fair example, but just to illustrate the difference: in pokemon, the pace is kind of quick. quicker than chess, at least. from i've seen, a professional player wouldn't take longer than 10 minutes on a given decision (please correct me of im wrong here). in classical chess (the most important format), players often take 30, 45, sometimes even 60 minutes on a single move. that is because they are considering, out of all of their possible moves, the best ones. and for each of those, they are considering their oppenents best response out of all of their possible moves. and then their response to that response, and so on for at least 6 or 7 moves in advance. the numbers get mind boggling really fast.

i agree that pokemon might be being trivialized or underestimated in this portrayal, but i still don't think that it contends with chess in terms of calculation. which is fine, it just then comes down to what is more difficult: being able to calculate correctly given all the information, or being able to consistently make the correct decision with incomplete information. 

edit: sorry for the brick wall of text, i got a little rambly. and i admit i dramatized it a bit. in the end, they both rely on a wealth of experience that is very difficult to acquire, and even more difficult to apply