----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "computer-go" <computer-go@computer-go.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] U. of Alberta bots vs. the Poker pros
At 12:42 28/07/2007, you wrote:
At 02:58 28/07/2007, Arend wrote:
On 7/26/07, chrilly
<<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is a remarkable result. I think poker is more difficult than Go and
of
course chess.
I am as surprised by this statement as everyone else. Of course you have
to develop some mixed strategies, try go guess implied pot odds, folding
equity etc. but assuming you have access to a large database of high
level poker games to analyze, why should it be that hard, esp. in
2-person limit Hold'em?
Arend
"Decision theory is trivial, apart from computational details (just like
playing chess!)".
From David J.C. MaKay, Information Theory, Inference and Learning
Algorithmus, Chap. 36, Decision Theory.
Thats exactly what I wanted to say. There are some nasty computational
details to solve, but it is conceptually clear. One can discuss, if the same
holds for Go. For me the details are somewhat more nasty, but I can see no
conceptuall difference to chess. The concept, that Go is sooo special and
sooo different was one roadblock for progress. Suzie is on 9x9 clearly
better than traditional programms and on 19x19 in the second-league. We
would just have to wait for further hardware progress (or parallize it) that
it catches up also on 19x19. UCT is even more successfull than Alpha-Beta.
UCT is - apart from details - also trivial computation.
But it is not clear what the best concept in Poker is.
Chrilly
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
