blob: eaf3b0da9c47fc82fa332dc5162a2dbb02623023 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
|
Schafer
turned over the
organized the event michael bolling
Poker
Th difference betwwen games
there is no randomness in chess and checkers
CCB are perfect information, when you look at the board you know everything you need to know, poker is an imperfect info, you don't know the person's cards.
luck and randomness:
Even I could beat the world champion if I got the right cards.
It's an algorythem, but completely different than for say a chess program.
Poker is a harder problem than chess because
The winning recipe for chess, depended on speed
The problem with poker is that we don't have a winning recipe. There are currently five or six recipes, but none of them are the obvious winning stradegy for building
AI
Nash equilibrum programs these are the strongest that we have right now. They don't learn.
eb:
rock paper sciccers: The nash e l stradegy, is garenteed to never lose. Int he long run stastically you win. I win and we tie 1/3
garenteed not to loose.
oblivious to the opponent
if you have obvious tells, the program is incapable of taking advantage of that and exploiting it. It will play strong poker, but it won't addapt to your playing.
The future is with programs that learn. Exploitive programs.
It's a very heard problem to solve. We're still looking for the magic recipes.
Some of the programs that applied in Vancover
|
