P.S. However, I do believe that poker has a great deal of
substantially different levels of ability. They simply need a lot of
distance to be distinguished. So it may be hard to compare with go or
chess that come in predefined chunks of one game.
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Sergey Nikolenko <snikole...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Petri Pitkanen
> <petri.t.pitka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not it woudl not be very simple. As these definitions have amount time set.
>> So If we compare tournament chess game about 4 hours. We must compare it to
>> poker session lasting four hours. Meaning about 200-400 hands. Probability
>> that a noob would win champion on that is extremely low.
>
> Why so low?
> A strategy that folds all hands except pocket aces and kings and does
> some scripted thing with the latter would have a reasonable chance of
> coming out ahead after 200-400 hands. I don't know enough to estimate
> the actual probabilities, but definitely not in the 10^{-20-30} range,
> much-much higher, I wouldn't be surprised if it had a 1% chance or so
> against even a pro (who does not know in advance what strategy the
> opponent employs).
>
> I don't know much about poker, but I heard that the pros regard poker
> as one unending game, which is probably as close to the objective
> truth as it gets. You can easily get lucky or unlucky even across
> thousands of hands, all poker players have had such up/down streaks.
>
> With best regards,
> Sergey Nikolenko.
>
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@dvandva.org
http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
