Quote:
Originally Posted by Man_Bear_Pig
This is the core of your argument (original spelling) and it is wrong. A persons emotions, style "vocabulary", ranges etc are manifested in the context of poker in their hand histories. These are effectively, large databases. This is data. Computers do good stuff with the databases. I do have a comp sci degree.
I could care less what you have a degree in, Im also studying IT, mainly networking though, and ive met many people with high degrees that fail to understand simple things, for me its not your title but your skills that matters
And its total BS to say that emotions is "manifested" in data. If you for example look at the secario of a chess engine, which is more than anything a math problem. Garry Kasparov played vs. this with 2 loss, 1 win and 3 draws. 3draws and 1 win against this highly complex computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer), was managed by kasparov because the machine will never play a perfect game of chess. It will look at huge amount of data of lines of moves, but the way its programmed its flawed because it favors a materialistic playing style more than anything else.
For example a player1 could have a "edge" vs player2 because of the given position, but the computer may state the game as equal or slightly in favor of player2. This is true in many ways, not only by means of a old engine like Deepblue which is from 1996, but also with the newest engines like Fritz. You may want to take a look at this game if you dont alleready know it. A game between Robert James "Bobby" Fischer and Robery Eugene Byrne, where not even Fritz did not see the winning line after Bobbys 18. Nxg2, and presumearbly bobby saw this four moves earlier when he sacrificed his knight on f2. This is one example where even modern and complex engines will not have the edge because of the way its coded.
Game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brYQ5fhTS6o
My arguement is that a games which is obviously more based on math, chess, compared to poker, even engines can be wrong when they got huge amount of data avalible, in form of databases of games and huge amount of calculation / sec in terms of position and lines.
Im sorry for the long post, and inbetween bad english, I dont care to take time and review it and the comparation to chess is somewhat abstract, but I think you will understand my point - that yes in raw data computers are faar superior, but in more complex situations which is hard to understand for computers they still need faar more and better programming to understand.
Hope it all makes sense
Regards, Chilly
Last edited by Chillypill; 09-14-2010 at 06:28 AM.