Nike Jordan Purple
imsteve 2458 days ago linkgregwebs 2458 days ago link
2. Heads up no limit, yes. A player who simply pushed all in every hand would only lose something like 45% against another player using optimal strategy, and would actually be a long term winner against more players than you'd think. I could write that bot.3. They may, but they do a very poor job of it. 6. A computer can easily tie at roshambo, Nike Jordan Purple and the roshambot beats most humans in the long run. And poker is much different and far more complex than blackjack. The two arent comparable at all.7. Irrelevant. I never contended that a bot couldn't win a tournament. They probably have. That's not really a good measure of ability.
I have actually programmed game AI and I can say none of your arguments is convincing. It is a very bold claim you are making, with very little to support it.
Chess and poker are fundamentally different problems. A great deal more effort has gone into computer chess than computer poker. When that amount of effort is put into computer poker, computers will be better than humans at poker.2. The argument can be made that poker is harder or more complex than chess for computers, but the opposite is definitely true of humans today. If you don't study chess hard from the age of ten and then dedicate your life to it starting in your teens, you can't be the best. The amount of study (not playing) is probably an order of magnitude difference. Chess has a rating system and is setup so that the players of similar calibar play each other. Contrast this with poker where professionals are always actively seeking to play against worse players (with higher bank rolls).
imsteve 2459 days ago link
I am not the parent, but:1. Subjective, with a nice insult thrown in there.2. Do you really think the simplest form of poker for a bot would be a No Limit game?3. Are you implying poker bots don't take opponents possible hands into account? wrong5. No reason to cast doubt, chess has had much more effort put into it. Polaris has been in the works for 17 years, not 26. Compared to over 50 years for chess engines.6. I don't think writing any chess engine is easy, but your main point, yes chess is a finite game. A computer isn't expected to win every time at rock, paper, scissors, so why poker? Like blackjack, there is a certain amount of available information, and poker bots can make the best play off that.7. Amateurs with 1 year of poker under their belt win a WSOP bracelet.
You can't really compare the twoI'll still try. Both games have a philosophical and a computational side. The chess philosopher could ask questions such as "everyone knows that dominating the Air Jordan 11 Low Navy
2. The dedication required is, in large part, due to the number of people who study the game, social attitudes towards it, and the wealth of information available. Show me a chess game that runs every night with buy ins in the hundreds of thousands.
In most forms of poker, though, it is far outweighed by the philosophical side, at least as of today. The poker philosopher could ask questions such as"everyone knows that being in position is an advantage, but WHY EXACTLY is that the case"If he's willing to work hard on his understanding of the game, he might, in theory, learn the rules at any age and become the world's best poker player in just a few years. Getting direct monetary value from one's philosophical insights is an attractive proposition. Unfortunately there are big psychological drawbacks, which Matt Maroon describes so well.
tlrobinson 2459 days ago link
Phil Laak is not one of t
1. I disagree, as do the few people I've met who work on it.
ntoshev 2458 days ago link
zoltz 2456 days ago link
The poker bots out there mostly suck because they don't need to be great to win lots of money from the weak players. That's dumb. They'd win 5x the money if they were great. be seeing this quote again:) I meant made yet, maybe I should have specified. I've no doubt that computers will one day overtake humans. It just is nowhere near having happened yet.
You are very incorrect. Here's where you're wrong:1. Phil Laak is not one of the best poker players. Not even top 100. The fact that you think he is shows how little you know about poker. Also, I don't even know who Ali Esmali is.2. The game (which I think was No Limit Hold'em) played was the simplest form of poker for a machine. Even if one became better at this than humans (which probably is possible in the not too distant future) it will be far from beating a 2 7 Triple Draw player.3. Figuring out odds is trivial, but virtually useless. Air Jordan 4 Oreo Ebay
Figuring out odds as well as a human, who has the ability to put his opponent on a range of holdings, is not.4. No poker bot ever made could come anywhere close to me in an 8 man, limit hold'em match, and there are far better players than me.5. I don't know if chess has had more man hours dedicated to it. It probably has. But Polaris has been worked on for 26 years. That's certainly not insignificant. Phil Laak has probably been playing for 10 or so.6. I'm a mediocre programmer at best but could easily write a chess program that, with infinite processing power, would be perfect. (I'm not sure if it would be unbeatable, as it is possible that with perfect play one side will always win.) I could not do that with poker. 7. Chess may be harder to learn for a human (though even there I'm not sure) but that doesn't mean it is also harder for a machine. Calculating the 18th power of 2 is harder for a human than picking out an apple from a group of pictures. Not the same for my PC.
centre is an advantage, but WHY EXACTLY is that the case"But even if he understands this better than others, it won't help him that much because chess games are decided on the computational side. This is why you have to start at an early age in order to become a great chess player. Jordans Women Eclipse
aquateen 2458 days ago link
6. IF I had a way to read my opponents emotions, etc like humans can, then I could write a fairly trivial program to do well at poker. Chess is a game of perfect information, where both players know the entire state of the game. In chess, the computer can calculate the best move given a situation. It doesn't need to know anything about the opponents strategy. In poker, it is pretty much the opposite. Your move depends partially on purely deterministic criteria, what people likely have, but more so on what you think everyone else thinks. For example, computers are excellent at doing large calculations very fast but terrible at recognizing objects in a scene visually, but humans are the exact opposite.
Nike Jordan Purple
Adidas Stan Smith Trainers JuniorHome
Adidas Stan Smith Pink Amazon
Jordans For Girls 2016 Black
Jordans 2016 Black And White
Nike Air Jordan 21
Nike Jordans Basketball Shoes
Air Jordan 6 Pinnacle Gold White
Air Jordan 11 Grey White Red
Stan Smith Zebre
Nike Air Jordan Low
Nike Air Jordan 4 Cement Grey
Jordans 2016 Black
Air Jordan 5 Grape
Adidas Stan Smith Decon Black
Adidas Stan Smith Horween Leather
/ Nike Jordan Purple