On Sat, 2007-07-28 at 13:01 +0100, Tom Cooper wrote: > Any variety of poker is sufficiently complicated that it is very difficult to > find an optimal mixed strategy, and therefore it is, as far as my > interest in it > is concerned, very different from Roshambo.
I followed the link to Iocaine that Brian posted: http://ofb.net/~egnor/iocaine.html which I ended up following to this link: http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/rsb-results1.html And this is what Darse Billings, the guy behind Polaris and sponsor of the RoShamBo tournament had to say: "Personally, I just want my poker program to play better. :)" I don't mean to say that poker is simple, but that a lot of strategy involves rock-paper-scissors psychology, which dilutes the intellectual idea of how "strong" a program (or person) is. It's interesting in it's own way, but I prefer a game like Go, where the information is perfect but the game is very deep and strength easily measured. In poker there's a huge advantage to knowing your opponent's internal strategy. In Go a stronger player can tell you exactly what he's doing at a high level, but it won't help much because his skill will overcome yours. -Jeff _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
