|
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 |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|