Bots - quote from a chessmaster to discuss

[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

[carlo]

I believe the computer that beat Kasparov was programmed by apprx. 8 computer/chess experts but what was telling was the ability to load in a wealth of previous games in which the computer was able to choose the best and strongest play.

There are opening books and game books as for an example the King's Indian Defense-there's enough literature out there to load up thousands of KI defense games and therough a logical deductive process have the comnputer make the best choice. No imagination, no creativity,etc.

The programmers also had the advantage of old Kasparov games. The deck was stacked-he had to play against "a machine" without imagination. In a real sense chess is limited in it's options and the deck could be stacked in this way.

Have the computer play thousands of games and allow Kasparov study its games-he wouldn't lose but you always have the possibility of the most boreing games on record.

Poker is not at all like this but a type of rigidity could be programmed into a bot but I believe you know what happens when you become rigid in poker [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img].

carlo

P.s. The computer didn't beat Kasparov, the 8 Human PHD's and chess history did.

I disagree that it would be easy to program a computer to beat world class players.

[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.

[stigmata]

[ QUOTE ]


Bots can beat low lvl SNGs, low stakes NL & can play strong HU poker w/o too much trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a matter of when, not if....

The problem with the idea of a bot is that a computer functions like "If condition A is true, do [this]". This is only passable at the weakest games, but I have a hard time visualizing how a bot is going to decide to "sometimes" do this or that, or to know when it's static moves have been found out and alter them in a correct way.

[Innocentius]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with the idea of a bot is that a computer functions like "If condition A is true, do [this]". This is only passable at the weakest games, but I have a hard time visualizing how a bot is going to decide to "sometimes" do this or that, or to know when it's static moves have been found out and alter them in a correct way.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a problem that chess programmers have also had to overcome. Sure, the computer behaves in a completely deterministic way, according to a "if this do that" strategy. But like poker, chess offers far to many possible sequences of events to give rules for every possibility.

As for how a successful poker bot would function exactly, I don't know, and I'm not at all certain that there will be one anytime soon. Having a bot detect when it's strategies are unsuccessful and making SOME adjustment should be fairly simple. Making the correct adjustments is probably harder. For varying the play random number generators can be used. But I think that a successful bot, if one is created at all, would be the result of lots of statistical analysis, and lots of trial and error.

[citanul]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree that it would be easy to program a computer to beat world class players.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) i didn't say it would be easy
b) you clearly have only a rudimentary knowledge of how computers and programming work, given your next post in this thread.