I am pretty sure the original article came to the conclusion that Poker was
a 1 or 2, and backgammon was a 4. Been a while since i saw it, but I think
those were the numbers. With checkers at 8, chess at 16 and go at
approximately 40. So its not like the authors had a problem with poker
having a low complexity.
The 40 rating for go is representative of a pro player versus an absolute
begginner and gives the beginner something like 8E-23% chance to beat a pro
(thats probably less than the chance of the pro dropping dead mid game :p)
If poker had a 1 rating it says an absolute beginner has a 25% chance to
beat Dolly (if its 2 then its a 6.25% chance, and from that I am inclined to
think its probably actually somewhere between the two, which based on the
definition would mean it is a complexity of 1)
Wow that was a bit rambly, sorry about that
--Ash
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christoph Birk" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] human complexity measure of games
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Nick Wedd wrote:
I believe that I am much stronger than IdiotBot. IdiotBot makes its
moves at random. But it is not impossible that IdiotBot will beat me, by
luckily happening to make good moves.
You are arguing using a real edge case. More realistically,
if I (3 kuy) play a pro I will not win a game in my lifetime,
even if we play every day.
If I (_not_ a poker pro) play 100 sessions of poker
(say 4 hrs) against Doyle Brunson, then I am confident to
finish ahead a few times.
Christoph
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
