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
It seems plausible to me that poker should, in some sense, be more
complicated than go. I'll ignore the massive savings from clever
search tricks in both games. In order to get optimal play in go, it
is necessary to search over all legal positions, of which there are
fewer than 3^(19^2). In order to get optimal play (ie a Nash
equilibrium) in poker, it is necessary to search over all strategies
(of both players). A strategy is a map from your knowledge (the
cards you can see and the opponent's bids) to an action. Even if we
assume a single round of bidding, the number of strategies for a
single player is roughly (no. of actions)^(no.hands * no opponents
bids). This is massively higher than the number of go positions.
_______________________________________________
Sorry, this isn't what I meant to say. A sensible strategy in poker
has to involve bluffing, so it is a map from knowledge into
distributions over actions. The point about it's being bigger than
the space for go is right though.
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
