[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]

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 ]

Total absurd bull-feathers. There is a misunderstanding here of how computers play chess and what their accomplishments have been. It’s not just a brute force issue. Mr. Sklansky and others here may have forgotten more about poker than I shall ever hope to learn, however I am also sensing a bit of false pride in that my “skill set” can’t be accomplished by a computer because of “X”. Do not forget that the computer does not play chess, it does not play poker, it only implements a game plan that a human being put into motion in writing the code and rules of logic. I’ve read comments like “heads up” yes.. but in Ring games and tourney’s no….. I don’t think so, I would suggest the opposite may be true.
Poker is a game of incomplete information, however let’s create a scenario where a top player sits down for a 2 year 24/7 session continued session, the end result is that a program could be developed to own that player or any player. The fallacy in this logic is to think of poker as only a game of incomplete information, view it instead as a game where bits and pieces of information are constantly leaking out over time. The longer the playing session the more information that’s gathered. A great player can change what he’s going to do on the next hand but he can’t change what he’s done in the past 300. And those 300 hands will yield information that can be used to optimize decisions going forward. Fuzzy Logic could be used as part of the basis to develop these actions and in the end, if enough time and resources are feed into it, the top poker players would be crushed…..