[Innocentius]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. High poker skill requires a lot of intellegence. Artificial intellegence is still very weak. If you check current computer games, AI gets better and better, but only to a certain degree. There is no game, which a human player cannot beat after a certain amount of training.


[/ QUOTE ]
Except for chess, ofcourse. 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 ]

Incorrect. Poker is a game of incomplete information, chess is not. What is the basis for this ridiculous statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are too hasty in calling this statement incorrect. I'm not saying that it is 100% correct, but I'm also inclined to believe it. The fact that poker is a game of inperfect information does not in itself imply that writing a bot for poker would be more difficult than doing it for chess. It's easy to imagine an incomplete information game for which it is trivial to write a good computer engine.

To a previous poster, I would also like to point out that there is considerably more to chess programming than a couple of basic principles. And controlling the centre above all else is just plain wrong.