Will computers dominate poker as they did with chess?

[Pirron]

Anwares the question in the topic. If you think the answare is yes than when and what conequences it will bring?

To be specific - domination - i mean beeing able to beat strongest human players and to be even more specific i mean texas hold'em deep stack no limit cash games shorthanded or heads up, because this suposed to be the most challenging form of poker for bots (as far as i know).

Thx for any input!

[infinity235]

Nope.

Chess = 100% skill
Poker = a mixture of skill and luck.

[bwadbwoy]

no, chess is a game of perfect information, wheras poker is one of imperfect info. In chess, a computer need only see the pieces to be able to find the optimal move, wheras with poker this move is subjective to many variables, not all of which are known. To find this optimal poker move you need to be able to LEARN - humans can learn, and to the extent needed, computers can't (yet).

[AaronBrown]

I agree with infinity235 and bwadbwoy in conclusion, but not in reason. Computers have even more advantage over humans in games that involve luck, and computers are also good at learning.

I think computers will soon be capable of non-exploitable heads-up play. I don't consider this dominating poker, however.

I don't think computers will ever be able to dominate a table of human players at no-limit. That's a different problem.

[bwadbwoy]

aaron, what proof do you have of computers' learning abilities?

[AaronBrown]

I don't have proof of a lot of the things I post. In this particular case, I would point to computer performance in games like Paper/Scissors/Rock. Even simple computer learning algorithms can easily beat most humans.

You might argue that's just preprogrammed pattern recognition rather than true learning (I don't know if that makes sense, I just mean it's the kind of thing some people might say). My point is that computers can analyze human strategies in games and adjust their counterstrategies accordingly; and they can be successful in games with humans by doing this.

[Blue Lagoon]

1. There is also a luck factor in chess, and in almost any other sport.
2. Poker is a game of imperfect info, but that's not a problem at all for a computer. I don't see the point here.

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope.

Chess = 100% skill
Poker = a mixture of skill and luck.

[/ QUOTE ]
Backgammon = a mixture of skill and luck... Try playing against Snowie.

Go = 100% skill... Try reading the Computer Go wiki page.

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Blue Lagoon]

...
And I add this thread. You've got the answer...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...=1#Post10298242

Scared?

[mwette]

I don't see what problem you see with the "luck" part.
I would think one can compute optimal strategies for
stochastic processes. The card statistics are known.
I would think the hard part is modeling the strategies
of competing players.