[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
My statement assumes both chess and poker computers are using the strategy that has the best chance against experts.

In the poker case that means it will try too many bluffs against a sucker.

In the chess case it means that it will assume the bad player will find the best move against it.

Stuff like that.

If you want to postulate a computer that deviates from optimum strategy when it sees bad play you run into the problem of counter strategies designed to make that occur.

A counter counter strategy would be nightmarish to program, I think. Practically, the best one could hope for would be a program that plays optimally. One that would not crush bad players to the degree an expert human would.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think an expert chess program and poker program would have many more differences than similarities.

The chess program goes through simultaneous calculations of different analytical trees, giving an evaluation at a certain depth of the tree based on checkmate, material gain or positional considerations with a weight assigned to each.

It is true the program will make the best move based on an evaluation of the position after what it thinks the best response to its move is. However, it is also simultaneously calculating the best way to exploit less than the best response made by an opponent. And there is every reason to believe that a computer is at least equal to a human in efficiently exploiting a bad move.

Now you and others seem to suggest that the human would have the better ability to play incorrectly in order to more efficiently exploit the weaker player. (The example you used was a bonus for winning in under 45 moves. A bad example by the way because the average chess game is about 40-45 moves and a computer could beat a weaker player in less moves.)

But this is exactly how chess and poker are different. As you and Ed Miller pointed out in NLHTP, poker and in particular No Limit is a battle of the mistakes. The better player should play less than optimally in order to exploit or take advantage of the weaker player's bigger and more costly mistakes. (Sorry if this is only a very rough characterization of your theory, I don't have the book in front of me). In chess, it isn't necessary to play suboptimally in order to exploit your opponent's weak moves. And playing suboptimally will not more efficiently exploit those moves.

A perfect example is Paul Morphy who has some of the most spectacular minatures where he beat opponents in under 25 moves. But examining most of those games, you will see that he played optimal developing moves for the most part and only once his opponent failed to make the optimal response, he would counter with the optimal way to exploit those mistakes. There is no reason to believe that a computer cannot do the same.

In short, neither the human chess player nor the computer need deviate from optimal strategy to most efficiently exploit the weaker move or player. Whereas I believe, as you have pointed out, it is necessary in poker to play suboptimally in order to more efficiently exploit the weaker player in the game.