[clovenhoof]

That's funny, I was thinking exactly the opposite. Where the topic of discussion is "where are we going with this in the future", I don't see that a reply of "we aren't there now and other people will be somewhere else" adds anything of value to the conversation.

The statement that those who could make a winning bot could make more money designing other kinds of program (which is how I interpret the spinning straw into gold comments) in my view overlooks the essence of the spirit of invention. Society has advanced because of people responding to their own muse, not that of other people or what other people think would be more profitable. Few Nobel laureates started down their path to the prize by saying, "Yeah, this is it. This is what's going to make me rich." Broadway is full of some of the greatest actors in the world, who could have made more money in film. Medical progress has been the result of scientists who chose not to make more money by developing a better diet pill, or a pill that helps people quit smoking.

While a poker bot certainly isn't something that will make the world a better place, it is a fascinating problem of the highest order. If we're focusing on a bot that uses artificial intelligence (as opposed to just a really well written program) then in my view poker is the perfect platform -- it strikes a very nice balance between game theory and the inherent flaws in human behaviour.

My view is that given the problem posed -- a bot that can beat the crap out of the online games that currently exist -- the current processor speeds, storage capacities, and memory size are more than sufficient that such a thing is possible, particularly given how much time the sites give each player to make a decision before timing him out.

'hoof