Slashdot Mirror


In New AI Benchmark, Computer Takes On Four Top Professional Poker Players

HughPickens.com writes: Stephen Jordan reports at the National Monitor that four of the world's greatest poker players are going into battle against a computer program that researchers are calling Claudico in the "Brains Vs. Artificial Intelligence" competition at Rivers Casino in Pittsburgh. Claudico, the first machine program to play heads-up no-limit Texas Hold'em against top human players, will play nearly 20,000 hands with each human poker player over the next two weeks. "Poker is now a benchmark for artificial intelligence research, just as chess once was. It's a game of exceeding complexity that requires a machine to make decisions based on incomplete and often misleading information, thanks to bluffing, slow play and other decoys," says Tuomas Sandholm, developer of the program. "And to win, the machine has to out-smart its human opponents." In total, that will be 1,500 hands played per day until May 8, with just one day off to allow the real-life players to rest.

An earlier version of the software called Tartanian 7 (PDF) was successful in winning the heads-up, no-limit Texas Hold'em category against other computers in July, but Sandholm says that does not necessarily mean it will be able to defeat a human in the complex game. "I think it's a 50-50 proposition," says Sandholm. "My strategy will change more so than when playing against human players," says competitor Doug Polk, widely considered the world's best player, with total live tournament earnings of more than $3.6 million. "I think there will be less hand reading so to speak, and less mind games. In some ways I think it will be nice as I can focus on playing a more pure game, and not have to worry about if he thinks that I think, etc."

20 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. That's Great and All by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 2

    But can it make me a sandwich?

    I think it's important to note that while we're good at making AI good at one thing, we're still a very long way from making it good at general skills.

    1. Re:That's Great and All by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 2

      But can it make me a sandwich?

      I doubt that an AI program will be able to do that anytime soon. However, it's well within the capability of today's genie:

          Human: Genie, make me a sandwich.
          (Flash! smoke dissipates to reveal sandwich in place of human)
          Genie: OK, you're a sandwich.

    2. Re:That's Great and All by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      The article claims a machine is more sanitary. But think about it, food gets everywhere, is a robot going to clean the machine? or a human? It's only more sanitary if it is cleaned thoroughly and regularly otherwise bacteria and mold could run rife.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  2. Mind games by Layzej · · Score: 4, Insightful

    not have to worry about if he thinks that I think, etc.

    I think he's wrong on this. A computer would still need to consider what his opponent thinks he holds and raise accordingly.

    1. Re:Mind games by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think he's wrong on this. A computer would still need to consider what his opponent thinks he holds and raise accordingly.

      Isn't necessary for chess... the top competitive chess programs (like the foss stockfish...) are not the best suited to beating humans... they still beat humans repeatedly, without mercy, game after game after game. Even the world (human) chess champion (Magnus Carlsen) admits that playing one of these engines is like repeatedly ramming your head into a wall.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re: Mind games by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      The subject of "optimal play" is always in terms of "an optimal opponent"

      This doesnt define what the "best move" is if at least one player is not one of these "optimal players."

      Here then is the problem: The grandparant learned about minimax and now think that he is an expert on chess engines, but hasn't actually put enough thought into it to even pretend to be an expert. He injects long series of assumptions into his arguments in order to reinforce his reliance on knowing what minimax is as being the focal point of his supposed expertise.

      The fact continues to be that the "best move" is not defined by minimax. The best move is defined by all the same criteria that poker theorists rely on: The opponents knowledge, tendencies, etc...

      In poker if both players are "optimal" then the sum of the game is $0.00, and the sum of the two different positions in heads up player are exactly opposite each other. Ergo "optimal" in poker has all the same characteristics that it does in chess so why then do we allow ourselves to use one definition of "best" in poker (happily declaring "because psychology!") while arbitrarily assign "only optimal is best" (happily declaring "fuck psychology!") in chess?

      We only do so if we are naively trying to justify a belief that hasnt any other justification. You think the top human chess players arent psyching each other out? arent bluffing? then you havent been paying attention.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  3. Re:Count cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Will the computer be prohibited from counting cards? Humans may bluff, but they cannot fake statistics.

    If you are not counting cards, you are playing poker wrong. This is not blackjack with multiple decks.

  4. Re:Count cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    In Texas Hold 'em, you see your own two cards and the up-to-5 community cards each hand, and the deck is shuffled between hands. Everyone knows what cards have been seen and what have not all the time without any card-counting skill.

  5. Less Mind Games? by tomhath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think there will be less hand reading so to speak, and less mind games.

    Isn't that what makes the game so interesting? Any good card game involves messing with your opponent's head.

  6. Texas Hold'em is not complex by ichabod801 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's poker that's dumb enough to be on TV. If they want a real challenge they should play seven stud.

  7. Re:A Strange Game by GuB-42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In fact poker has rules (antes, blinds) where the whole point is to make not playing a losing move.
    In a global thermonuclear war, it would be like making unused bombs self detonate in one's country after some time.

  8. Re:Count cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Your replies aren't quite making this clear for some reason, but counting cards is a strategy for blackjack, not poker. In poker, the deck is shuffled after each hand, so there is nothing to count. Of course, using whatever information is available to estimate the value of the hands' of your opponents is part of the basic strategy of poker that every sane player, including this computer, uses.

  9. World's best? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... says competitor Doug Polk, widely considered the world's best player...

    What, are you kidding me? Bluff has him ranked as number 36. That's pretty good, but a far cry from "widely considered the world's best."

  10. Re:Count cards by theskipper · · Score: 2

    I was also confused how this could work in holdem. After some googling it appears that "counting" in poker only refers to certain stud games where hands ahead of you are exposed.

    In holdem the only (?) additional info you could have over a competitor is if someone in early position folded and revealed their cards (obviously uncommon). That's info that the small blind wouldn't have had, and could be very useful if you're in late position, especially on the button. But imo that's not really "counting", just gaining info to craft your betting strategy.

    Decent answer here:
    https://answers.yahoo.com/ques...

  11. Re: Count cards by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, it doesnt depend. All the cards that you have seen are visible to you for the entire hand. Card counting is about remembering statistics about cards that you have seen but are no longer visible.

    The guy that you linked to thinks that knowing how many outs you have is "card counting" -- no. you also apparently think so, which means that you cannot possibly have anything to add on this subject (and your ignorance on this subject is not a secret to you, so why are you pretending?)

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  12. Re: Count cards by greg1104 · · Score: 2

    That site doesn't understand what card counting is. When you count cards, it changes how much you bet on a hand you haven't seen yet. You increase your bet (or enter the game altogether) only when the player odds are higher than normal.

    Counting "outs", the number of cards in the desk that will improve your hand, is not what's called card counting in casino games.

  13. Re:AI has great chances by Rockoon · · Score: 2

    People struggle at memorizing chances, taking shortcuts, computers have exact picture talking into account every single bit.

    Memorizing chances isn't very important in no-limit. A rough estimate is all you need because other factors will completely dominate whatever error exists in your estimate. When the implied odds can vary between ~1:1 and 100:1, the second or third digit of your estimate of the chances of making a winning hand (for instance, ~2.5:1 against making a flush) is drowned out.

    In car analogy terms, its like worrying about if insurance will cover the broken taillight after your car has been t-boned at an intersection by another car going 60 mph. Yeah, it would be nice if the insurance will replace that taillight... but its more important that they will cover the hospital bills

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  14. Heads-up No Limit cash game, not tournaments by grimJester · · Score: 2

    Amusingly, Bluff magazine has a ranking of the best HUNL players where he's number one. But he's written the list himself :)

    He really is among the best heads up no limit players though.

  15. Crappy, sensationalist reporting. by bradley13 · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFS refers to TFA which refers to another TFA, and all of them are pathetically written. Here's a link at CMU discussing the competition. This is the second link in TFS, but it's not clear that all of the other links in the first paragraph are just trash.

    In any case, a couple of points and/or musings:

    • 1500 hands per day, 6 days per week, for two weeks running. I only play at a hobby level, but...isn't that a whopping lot to expect of the human players? Any serious players out there who can comment?
    • One of the pros expects fewer "mind games". But mind games are part of the game - if this is a decent AI, shouldn't he be in for more mind games?
    • The hands are "prepared". On the one hand, this bothers me, because we must assume that the researchers do not (even subconsciously) select hands that their AI can win. On the other hand, the reason for the preparation (only discussed in the CMU article - all of the "journalists" failed to understand this point) is so that they can play duplicate, in support of better scientific results.

    As a final note: may I please encourage submitters and/or our illustrious editors to not fluff up submissions with links to crappy articles that miss most of the important points? Just the source link would have been enough - it's a good article with real information written in actual English.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  16. Re:AI has great chances by Kjella · · Score: 2

    It's my impression that pro players often get amateur players through bet sizing, if your call/fold response doesn't match the equity of your hand they'll pretty easily see that they can milk you for value or push you into folding. Or that the amateurs are bad at getting the maximum value out of their good hands because they give the pros easy call/fold odds. Of course there's a lot more to bet sizing than your own two cards, but you can't bluff properly without having a pretty good clue about what you represent having and making credible bets as if you had those cards. Pros are pretty good at smelling stories that don't make sense where you're betting on the turn/river like you have cards that you'd never play that way preflop/on the flop because they're usually a bluff. Or a very well disguised hand, but they'll sure test if you're capable of that.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings