Bots - quote from a chessmaster to discuss

[beenben]

from an artilce in the 11/27/2005 NYT by Jennifer Shahade, the U.S. women's
chess champion in 2002 and 2004:

"Further, Internet chess cheating, alreacy a problem because dishonest players
can use sophisticated computer programs to decide their moves, would balloon out
of control if money were at stake. (Online card rooms don't have hte same
problem because poker computers are still too weak to dominate human
opponents.)"

Discuss.

[yvesaint]

hey man no offense but your threads dont really belong in MTT

[ QUOTE ]
hey man no offense but your threads dont really belong in MTT

[/ QUOTE ]

[excession]

I think limit holdem and short stack NL (incl. SnG's which become short stack push games pretty fast) are all relatively easy for bots to get up to speed in now.. deep stack NL/MTT's are a much harder problem.
Also if bots take off the sites will have to restrict data-mining or even hh's entirely, so i'm not sure the cyborg analogy will hold good in the future

[Exitonly]

That's Curtain's sister.

Awesome.

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.

2. Every AI has its leak. Look into the forums of the games to find out where. So, also a common poker software would have a leak, which would be posted in every forum.

[SNOWBALL138]

[ 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 ]

Nonsense. I've been on the last level of final fantasy X for six months. RPGs are rigged.

[Girchuck]

[ 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 ]
[ 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?

[citanul]

[ 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 ]

while clearly his numbers are completely wildly pulled out of his ass,

surely you aren't suggesting that a computer can't be programmed to participate in a game of incomplete information, and do so well?

c