Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > Poker Theory
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

View Poll Results: Who starts?
Cadillac Williams (Bal) 26 70.27%
Willis McGahee (at NE) 11 29.73%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-03-2007, 01:31 PM
JocK JocK is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 93
Default Re: Will computers dominate poker as they did with chess?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have confused separate events.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but this isn't quite correct either. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


[/ QUOTE ]
Please explain exactly what you think was incorrect. My version is based on the papers by Tesauro I read, in for example, the journal Machine Learning, and correspondence with Tesauro, among other things.


[/ QUOTE ]
All of this is irrelevant. The simple point is that self-trained backgammon bots do prove that computer learning is possible. (That was the question, isn't it?) In fact, self-trained backgammon bots discovered novel opening moves overlooked by human experts and thereby elevated our understanding of the game. So, these bots didn't just learn, they also invented... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-03-2007, 07:26 PM
pzhon pzhon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,515
Default Re: Will computers dominate poker as they did with chess?

[ QUOTE ]
The simple point is that self-trained backgammon bots do prove that computer learning is possible. (That was the question, isn't it?)

[/ QUOTE ]
The question was not whether a neural net can be trained to learn that 2+2=4. The question is whether a computer program can be trained to play poker at a very high level.

The example you raised of backgammon does not suggest that computer programs can learn to play poker well through self-play, as that didn't happen in backgammon. It suggests that the help of poker experts may be highly beneficial in the training process.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, self-trained backgammon bots discovered novel opening moves overlooked by human experts and thereby elevated our understanding of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]
The main contributions of backgammon bots have not been in the opening. Human experts strongly disliked making the 2 point with the opening 6-4. Early backgammon bots strongly favored it. The current understanding is that the 3 natural plays 8/2 6/2, 24/14, and 24/18 13/9 are very close; both human and bot evaluations were wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

So, these bots didn't just learn, they also invented... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a big fan of AI. I own an AI company. However, you are overstating the case.

Most of the people working on poker bots are trying limited techniques which have no chance of playing poker well.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.