Chess is a game that is all about:

• Tactics
• Strategy
• Oneupmanship
• Deceit
• Psychology
• Federations and affiliations
• Geographic boundaries
• Followers

All of the above aspects are essential traits of a Politician...

So, by implication, should a master Chess player make for an amazing Politician?

Chess masters master the game itself which has nothing to do with deceit, federations and affiliations, geography, or followers.  Organizing chess and chess politics fit in with the rest of your list, but a chess master doesn't need any knowledge/mastery of "geographic boundaries" or "followers" for example.

Chess is a game that's:

zero-sum
perfect knowledge
turn based...

Politics isn't a game or any of these things.  Like nearly everything else in life, chess skills simply don't carry over.

If this was a joke, sorry for taking it seriously heh.  Sometimes 10 posts down someone will shout, the OP was just kidding of course.

For sure Chess Masters master the game, however that is not the only thing they master...

If the only things Chess Masters were interested in was the game, the international Chess federation would never have bifurcated in to two...

Chess Masters rely heavily on seconds and correspondence followers (including journalists) for a multitude of reasons, not all for above board activities... 

Chess as per you is:

zero-sum - not exactly, one can benefit by drawing a game...
perfect knowledge - great masters have repeatedly said that instincts play a big role in guiding them...
turn based - in many cases the lines are forced with no advantage of having the turn...

nope

also depends on what makes an amazing polititian, but still no

what do you think makes someone an amazing politician?

No! Chess is played on an open board, with complete information--that's not like politics at all. Poker, which is played with incomplete information and where psychology and bluffing and reading your opponent are essential skills, is much more like politics

In your opinion, is chess more complicated or poker?

Boy That's a tough one! I haven't played a lot of competetive poker, but I think it's pretty complex when there's money on the line. And money management is another vital skill in poker. Some of the top poker players are pretty good chess players, so there must be some overlap in the skills required, but I really can't figure out which is more complex. And don't forget high-level competitive bridge! There's a game that requires a lot of theory (a well-understood, complex bidding system) with the ability to make inferences and try to vizualize the hidden hands. It's another tough game.

I think bridge is more complicated than poker and also that bridge calls for more skill than poker...

Well, Kasparov certainly seemed to think so.

On average, great chess players probably would make "better politicians" (whatever that means). However, I would be very wary of them-- lots of people who have a mastery of a system think it must extend everywhere else, and are sadly mistaken.

So what is your  conclusion, do they or do they not?

On one hand you say they probably do and on the other you claim that they have misconceptions about the system being scalable...

a politician (without giving a cynical answer that would indicate politicians are best when corrupt, dishonest, and lacking morals or principles) seeks approval to lead a particular party.  Some people think politicians are simply criminals, and I would prefer someone who is genuine and honest.  It takes a special kind of person who would welcome a career in fake smiles and hand shakes, but in that group are people who genuinely hope to do goodwill.

Either way, for either one, being good at chess, and retaining the points you mention won't make a person capable of successfully leading their political party.  I have noticed that some people who are great at games can lack common sense or simple logic [[[EDIT - I feel really bad about what I wrote here, it seemed kind of mean when I read it over so I'm just going to delete it...sorry if the post doesn't even make sense anymore]]]  I would think chess players make better political advisors...... maybe.

I think chess and your points would be helpful to a politician, but I don't think it would make a good politician out of a master chess player.  Not at all.

Respect your view...