Poker Bot piece

[Pirc Defense]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you heard of quantum computing? The amount of calculations per second a quantum computer can handle are so vast that it can perform calculations that would take standard computers something like one hundered years to perform. I would bet a computer like that could be programmed to be easily as good as any human player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your comment, Gazzbut. Quantum computing has its applications and it will be nice when, some time down the road, it becomes mainstream. But already we have more than enough computing power to calculate all the information we need to make poker decisions. The calculations needed to play poker are not even that intensive, especially at today's processing speeds.

[magiluke]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you heard of quantum computing? The amount of calculations per second a quantum computer can handle are so vast that it can perform calculations that would take standard computers something like one hundered years to perform. I would bet a computer like that could be programmed to be easily as good as any human player.

[/ QUOTE ]

The most powerful computer in the world still has to be programmed by a human.

That is all.

[ QUOTE ]
The most powerful computer in the world still has to be programmed by a human.

That is all.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're implying that that means that a human can't program a computer to play better than said human, that is false. One counterexample that immediately springs to mind: the checkers playing program Chinook.

If you're implying that raw computing power is less important in this case than clever algorithms, which will require a non-trivial amount of human effort to create, that is true.

Finally, your statement is literally false: automated programming is an active field of artificial intelligence, though I will admit that the results so far have not been far-reaching. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[magiluke]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're implying that that means that a human can't program a computer to play better than said human, that is false. One counterexample that immediately springs to mind: the checkers playing program Chinook.

If you're implying that raw computing power is less important in this case than clever algorithms, which will require a non-trivial amount of human effort to create, that is true.

Finally, your statement is literally false: automated programming is an active field of artificial intelligence, though I will admit that the results so far have not been far-reaching. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow... You read way too much into that, and didn't pay attention to the post that I was replying to.

Firstly, I go to school for CS, so you don't have to tell me about programs writing programs; I've written stuff like that (not as complex as you are thinking, but I have).

Anyway, if you read the post I was replying to:

[ QUOTE ]
Have you heard of quantum computing? The amount of calculations per second a quantum computer can handle are so vast that it can perform calculations that would take standard computers something like one hundered years to perform. I would bet a computer like that could be programmed to be easily as good as any human player.

[/ QUOTE ]
you would realize that the poster was implying that just because we can make really really good computers, means that they are able to beat a human. My point is that just because we have the capabilities to run programs that can easily beat humans, doesn't mean that we have the knowledge/ability to program them yet.

In short, just the speed/capabilities of a computer don't mean a thing unless it is programmed correctly.

Also, as far as the last point is concerned, I'd like you to write a program that can write a program that beats me in poker. I'd love to see it.

[ QUOTE ]
Wow... You read way too much into that, and didn't pay attention to the post that I was replying to.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. Your response appeared to me to be ambiguous and I was trying to clear it up. Apparently I only succeeded in muddying the waters.

The first possibility was that you were claiming that, no matter how powerful the computer, computers can only do what they're programmed to do by some human and hence can never be creative or better than their programmers or anything like that. That argument is, of course, silly, but some people make it in all seriousness and I wanted to respond if that's what you meant. Your response makes it clear that this is not the case.

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, I go to school for CS, so you don't have to tell me about programs writing programs; I've written stuff like that (not as complex as you are thinking, but I have).


[/ QUOTE ]

The statement you are referring to was meant as a silly little joke, hence the winking graemlin.

[ QUOTE ]
...you would realize that the poster was implying that just because we can make really really good computers, means that they are able to beat a human. My point is that just because we have the capabilities to run programs that can easily beat humans, doesn't mean that we have the knowledge/ability to program them yet.

In short, just the speed/capabilities of a computer don't mean a thing unless it is programmed correctly.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well put. I agree with that completely and that's what I tried to express with the second possibility I listed.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, as far as the last point is concerned, I'd like you to write a program that can write a program that beats me in poker. I'd love to see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love to see me do that too. Not bloody likely... *laugh*

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
limit, computers would probably own it up. +ev decisions everytime.. but i still would like to see how they would proram a bot play to play no limit

[/ QUOTE ]

Its much easier to write a No Limt Bot than a Limit one. The key is to always play as short stacked as possable.

[magiluke]

[ QUOTE ]
The statement you are referring to was meant as a silly little joke, hence the winking graemlin.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might have meant it as a joke, but it's true. There is a whole field of research involving programs writing programs. I wasn't kidding when I said that I wrote very basic programs that write other programs.

[ QUOTE ]
Well put. I agree with that completely and that's what I tried to express with the second possibility I listed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoops... Reading it again, I guess I glazed over that part. Sorry =D

[Gazzbut]

I think the AI which will be possible with quantum computers means they will be able to learn to play the game much like we do. They will probabaly be avid readers of the 2+2 forums and maybe even post a few hand examples for analysis...Im being serious here by the way!

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
They will probabaly be avid readers of the 2+2 forums and maybe even post a few hand examples for analysis...Im being serious here by the way!

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be a trivial programming excercise to program a bot to automatically post interesting hands on 2+2 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Excellent thread; Intelligent(for the most part) and lively debate on a very intriguing and important topic. Both sides had interesting arguments, however only the premises provided by Pirc Defense, Sniper, and the like withstood all critical analysis, ultimately demonstrating the soundness of their argument. Just wanted to put in my two cents and give props to those aforementioned for their intelligent and informed commentary.

-MyLieYourLullaby