To me it's only reasonable if you play a single game of poker.
But that's not a reasonable assumption.
In poker, the question is, who has the chips at the end of the day.
Stefan
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Ashley Griffiths wrote:
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
Thanks, these numbers look very reasonable to me,
Christoph
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@dvandva.org
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@dvandva.org
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
