[zasanya]

JLOGIC, on Jul 19 2010, 08:58 PM, said:

qwery_hi:

I would gladly bet $100,000 on myself and a partner against any 2 computers playing in a partnership in a reasonably long format. I would submit to being monitored at all times during this match to ensure no cheating.

If there needs to be more money at stake I could try to raise funding, I doubt it would be a problem, but I cannot guarantee betting a million dollars since I don't have it. And I am not close to being the top player in the world. I'm sure if you wanted to do Meckwell vs 2 computers a lot of funding could be raised for that but I cannot speak for them or their participation.

Do you really think anyone with a computer program would touch this bet? If you do, please contact them and inform them of this offer.

If your only basis for saying that bridge played with some system regulation is a less complicated game than any form of poker, then hopefully you can see that is pretty silly since a lot of bridge players would put up a lot of money for a matchup against a computer.

In the 80s David Levy an international chess master made a similar bet that he can beat any chess playing computer program .I myself remember beating 'Novag' one of the better programs in early 80s.It was a simultaneous display where I was playing against 17 other players
In 1996 Deep Blue a computer program defeated Gerry Kasparov perhaps the greatest chess player of all time.I believe millions of dollars were riding on the outcome of this match.
So beware Justin .

[JLOGIC]

Huh? He wanted to make the bet in the 80s. It was about 10 years later before a computer was good enough to beat kasparov right? Prior to those 10 years Kasparov was probably much much better than the computer and would win easily. In fact Kasparov won his first match vs Deep Blue. If the guy wanted to make the bet that he would ALWAYS be able to beat computers, that is stupid. If he wanted to make the bet that he could beat any comptuer at that point in time, seems like he was right.

I am not claiming that I will always be able to beat computers. In fact I think the opposite. However if we want to speculate which will be better than top humans first, a 100 BB HU NL program or a bridge program, it is not really close to me that the NL program will be the best first.

I do believe eventually computers will be better than humans at all games.

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Jul 20 2010, 11:56 AM, said:

I must be missing something but poker seems a very simple game to me. By simplifying the rules a little bit I can derive the optimal strategy on the back of an envelope.

Having done a master's thesis on one very small sub game within poker, I feel safe asserting that you're missing an awful lot.

Consider that the number of cards that you draw provides a signal about the strength of your hand...

Now try to determine the optimal number of cards to draw in some specific situation. (For example, derive the optimal number of cards to draw in a pot matching game when you hold three of a kind...)

[JLOGIC]

Heh yeah I don't understand what you said Helen cuz you're smart, but if it was really that easy couldn't you turn pro and make millions?! Obviously you are missing something.

[gwnn]

I was playing 'guess the half of the average of the guesses' (on a 0 to 100 scale) with my friends the other day. I went with the optimum strategy and said 0.

The other guesses were 30, 35 and 75.

I didn't win.

[JLOGIC]

gwnn, on Jul 20 2010, 05:18 AM, said:

I was playing 'guess the half of the average of the guesses' (on a 0 to 100 scale) with my friends the other day. I went with the optimum strategy and said 0.

The other guesses were 30, 35 and 75.

I didn't win.

at least you didnt say 100!

[mike777]

7-28-insane


I see a kind of decent player,,,..I paid lots.....I enjoy many many lots


I am old...i pay old......


my date is hot/wife!

[gnasher]

gwnn, on Jul 20 2010, 11:18 AM, said:

I was playing 'guess the half of the average of the guesses' (on a 0 to 100 scale) with my friends the other day. I went with the optimum strategy and said 0.

The other guesses were 30, 35 and 75.

I didn't win.

How much do you trust your friends? The optimum strategy is to collude.

[hanp]

JLOGIC, on Jul 20 2010, 05:04 AM, said:

Heh yeah I don't understand what you said Helen cuz you're smart..

I agree of course that Helene is smart, but writing in language that others cannot understand is not a sign of it.

I don't understand mike777's post.

[billw55]

All this talk of computers reasonably competing with top players makes me glad I play Go. The Go bots have more ground left to cover than in any other game I know of.

[rbouskila]

I think it's pretty self-evident that a game with large amounts of money involved will be more interesting to watch.

Either make it normal for there to be cash prizes at bridge tournaments (big ones--possibly the various bridge organizations should be going after corporate sponsors for tournaments), or we could go back to playing rubber at tournaments...

[jjbrr]

hanp, on Jul 20 2010, 06:40 AM, said:

JLOGIC, on Jul 20 2010, 05:04 AM, said:

Heh yeah I don't understand what you said Helen cuz you're smart..

I agree of course that Helene is smart, but writing in language that others cannot understand is not a sign of it.

I never understand mike777's posts.

this

[JLOGIC]

jjbrr, on Jul 20 2010, 09:27 AM, said:

hanp, on Jul 20 2010, 06:40 AM, said:

JLOGIC, on Jul 20 2010, 05:04 AM, said:

Heh yeah I don't understand what you said Helen cuz you're smart..

I agree of course that Helene is smart, but writing in language that others cannot understand is not a sign of it.

I never understand mike777's posts.

this

non expert..,, on mike777..,.,,,

42 blue ♠♥ 8.,,,,

That was the time

[billw55]

rbouskila, on Jul 20 2010, 09:20 AM, said:

I think it's pretty self-evident that a game with large amounts of money involved will be more interesting to watch.

I don't think that is even remotely self-evident.

Quote

Either make it normal for there to be cash prizes at bridge tournaments (big ones--possibly the various bridge organizations should be going after corporate sponsors for tournaments), or we could go back to playing rubber at tournaments...

The problem with cash prizes, is that it is difficult to prevent cheating in bridge. Thus lack of incentive is the most common anti-cheating measure.

[3for3]

I am surprised that a computer isn't better at GO than bridge. GO is a game of perfect information, which must be easier to solve than games without PI

[helene_t]

Yeah, writing a computer programing that plays perfect bridge may be more difficult than writing a program that plays perfect go. But bridge is more difficult for humans, too.

[hanp]

If you'd graph the level of complexity of games it would look something like this:

backgammon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
checkers . . . . . . . . . X
poker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
chess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
go . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
rock paper scissors . . . . . . . . X
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Level of complexity in ours of programming per IQ level- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[billw55]

Quote

I am surprised that a computer isn't better at GO than bridge. GO is a game of perfect information, which must be easier to solve than games without PI

The problem with Go is the size of the tree. It is orders of magnitude larger than chess. Perhaps eventually brute force calculation will win out, as it did in chess. But for now, the best bots out there are only the level of modestly advanced amateurs.

Bridge by comparison, is a much smaller tree. But as you say, the lack of PI makes it a somewhat different problem from an AI standpoint.

[peachy]

hanp, on Jul 20 2010, 11:10 AM, said:

If you'd graph the level of complexity of games it would look something like this:

backgammon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
checkers . . . . . . . . . X
poker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
chess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
go . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
rock paper scissors . . . . . . . . X
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Level of complexity in ours of programming per IQ level- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the end, poker is a game of luck more than skill. Not sure what you mean by complexity.
Rubber bridge is also a game of luck more than duplicate bridge, in case someone argues that "skill matters in poker". Of course it does but lucky beginner who learned the basic rules of poker 1 hour ago can easily win in poker while that is not possible in duplicate bridge.

[fuburules3]

A lucky beginner who has just learned the rules of poker can win in the short term, but not in the long term because poker IS a game of skill . . .

The rules of bridge are more complicated, but if someone knew the basic rules they could win in the short term if they are lucky (bid a bad making game etc.), although I agree that there is less variance than in poker.

I guess it depends on how you define game of "skill," but since over any large sample size a good poker player will beat a bad one, I don't see how you can say it is a game of luck just because in the short term there is some amount of variance.