Quote:
Originally Posted by leavesofliberty
Rusty's pretty smart, and his argument makes some sense, though when he says, "given enough computing power", I don't think this is accurate. Today, "enough computing power" is practically infinite and past the size of the entire economy many times over, especially for more complicated games. There are, in my opinion, missing algorithms still.
Here's the flaw with Rusty's argument. Mathematicians have long known that computers could solve these kinds of problems "given enough computing power", so poker was solved decades ago, under Rusty's argument.
To do a brute force analysis for HU NLHE is probably practically impossible. Even for LHE it might be practically impossible.
But for methods like CFR I don't think that's true. I think a few orders of magnitude from now will probably be enough to crack HUNLHE for example. Possibly only for limited scenarios - such as, limiting bet sizes to, say, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 1x and 2x pot size or something like that, and/or limiting stacks to integer values of chips up to a maximum.
I think most people don't consider a game solved until a solution exists that you can point to and use, but I was just trying to explain how to a game theorist, the methods to solve poker are essentially known. I don't actually know if a lot of effort or interest exists to try to to improve approximate solutions for the game at the academic level. Obviously, there is a lot of engineering effort going into it, but that is by no means the same thing.