[greygoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After decades of development, chess bots reached parity with the best human players.
If even 1% of funding devoted to chess expert systems went into poker expert system, it would be capable of beating world class poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

People always behave as if chess and poker are the only games people want to beat with computers. Significant effort has gone into Go programs as well, with only marginal success.

Martin

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with Go is that there are just way more variantions plus the fact that stones can leave and then reappear on the board. Plus evaluation function is harder there, but computers ill get there, trust me. And there is no dispute that chess program research by far had way more attention through the years.

Chess programs don't outplay humans in terms of strategy, pressure or understanding of the game. Their evaluation function and computing capabilities, coupled with openings book and table-bases, just present human player with a problems he is incapable to solve most of the times. He makes a subtle mistakes, computer capitalize on that. Computers don't know [censored] about chess and they don't need to.

It's only a matter of time an effort, before it happens with such a simple game as poker. You don't need to know what human is thinking. You just create a model, sofisticated enough that human would be incapable of figuring out, therefore he would not be able to play optimally against it.

Computers will always surpass humans in competitions within limited context. Only a matter of time and complexity of context.