[hanp]

peachy, on Jul 20 2010, 12:01 PM, said:

Not sure what you mean by complexity.

Good point. Neither do I.

[ArtK78]

peachy, on Jul 20 2010, 12:01 PM, said:

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.

No. Poker is a game of skill with a significant luck element.

I play poker more than bridge at this point in my life. I guarantee you that better players win far more frequently than other players. Each given hand has a high variance factor; however, one of the traits of the better player is to minimize exposure when the variance is high and take full advantage of situations in which the variance is low.

I understand how duplicate poker works, but I have never tried it. It seems to me that the basic principal of duplicate poker eliminates a great deal of the luck factor - every player in the same position at the various tables gets the same cards. But duplicate poker does not eliminate the luck factor relating to how the cards fall on the flop, turn and river. I am undecided as to whether duplicate poker has much of a future. I have not seen promotions for any live duplicate poker tournaments, although there must have been some. When top players (the ones you see on television) start promoting duplicate poker tournaments, that is when it will have arrived.

[billw55]

I have not played duplicate poker either. But it sounds to me that it would turn out something like duplicate backgammon. Once different results occur on one hand, the results on future hands are affected, at least by different stack sizes and maybe other factors. Each hand is not a separate contest the way they are in bridge.

[NickRW]

The form I know of that used duplicate poker was 1 human vs 1 computer at one table and 1 computer vs 1 human at the other with the humans being a team vs the computers. Also it was infinite stacks. In that form the variance goes down a lot.

[xcurt]

3for3, on Jul 20 2010, 10:03 AM, said:

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

Danny,

Go is made very difficult for computers because the transposition tables are brutally complex. As the game progresses, parts of the board become disconnected, but computers aren't good at recognizing that interpolations are often immaterial.

If you read Ginsberg's papers on GIB and bridge, he was working out how to handle this problem in bridge. His approach is to do alpha-beta pruning over sets of positions related by having the same minimax value, instead of over individual positions.

You could try the same approach for Go, but I think the computational cost simply grows too quickly. Go games run over 100 plies, GM encounters in chess typically run 60-90 plies, bridge hands are only 52 plies and on most turns there are only a few allowed moves. You can see the effect of small changes to the allowed moves per turn on the cost to analyze a hand by running hands with multiple voids through GIB. They take a very long time, relatively speaking.

I think you're placing too much weight on the imperfect information aspect of bridge. Computers do very well at predictive modeling in many other situations where there are latent variables that can only be modeled statistically.

Curt

[Lobowolf]

peachy, on Jul 20 2010, 12:01 PM, said:

In the end, poker is a game of luck more than skill.

In the beginning, poker is a game of luck more than skill; in the end, it is a game of skill more than luck. Or to put it another way, metaphorically, the lucky players are ahead at the end of the day, but the good players are ahead at the end of the year.

[H_KARLUK]

I recognize Poker as gamble.

[Codo]

hanp, on Jul 21 2010, 01:10 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- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is a joke isn't it?

Did you ever see a go or chess player become a pro in less then 10 years of playing?
Did you realisze how many average chess and bridge players make their life now by poker- and how quick they "learned" the game?

[Fluffy]

I know there is a poker book that says somethign like a poker pro can kick your ass at rock paper scissors, but still calling it more complex than checkers....

[Lobowolf]

Fluffy, on Jul 21 2010, 04:10 AM, said:

I know there is a poker book that says somethign like a poker pro can kick your ass at rock paper scissors

Silly book. Give me the slightest of money odds and a watch with a second hand...

Just kidding about needing the watch. I could base my selection on the digits of pi, the letters in the states in the union, or any other random-ish series and bust Phil Ivey at 1.01 to 1 odds.

[junyi_zhu]

hanp, on Jul 20 2010, 04:10 PM, 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- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nonsense.
Go is the most difficult individual game ever invented. Without a time limit, the worse player can never beat the better one in any ten games, computers are just quite hopeless in beat human in my life time.
Bridge is probably the most difficult partnership game ever invented. I also don't think computers have any realistic chance to beat human in my life time.
Poker is a skilled game with a lot of luck involved and justice may not really serve in one's lifetime...When you play 10K hands, your sample size may still be too small to convince you that you are a winning player at a certain stake.

[Lobowolf]

junyi_zhu, on Jul 21 2010, 06:31 PM, said:

When you play 10K hands, your sample size may still be too small to convince you that you are a winning player at a certain stake.

I think you have this backwards; there's no need for a large sample to convince anyone that he's a winning player, but a sample of one million hands is too small to convince someone that he's a losing player. All poker players win because they're good, and lose because they're unlucky.

[JLOGIC]

Lol at nobody understanding Han. Come on people, lighten up and get a sense of humor!

[Codo]

Lobowolf, on Jul 22 2010, 08:51 AM, said:

All poker players win because they're good, and lose because they're unlucky.

So bridge and poker are quite close relatives...

[helene_t]

But Han based his diagram on 100,000,000 simulations so it must be accurate.

[hotShot]

Go is solved by the computer for 5x5 fields, unfortunately beginners start at 9x9 and the real thing is 19x19.
But the question is: Does the "complextity" grow or just the workload?

[blackshoe]

Yes.

[Bbradley62]

aguahombre, on Jul 18 2010, 07:16 PM, said:

Consider also local clubs which need to find places to hold their games. Certain churches, Community centers, and membership clubs do not want to be associated with gambling activities....whether real or imagined. For bridge to be linked in any way to poker could be problematic.

Would those places also ban chess and Go tournaments, since their governing organizations are also members of IMSA? Puhleeze...

[Bbradley62]

JLOGIC, on Jul 18 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

That said, even if it hurts the image of bridge, the image right now for almost everyone is that it's a game played by their grandmothers.

My grandmother taught me to play poker when I was 5.