Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutha  How do you know? It was easier to write a computer program that can play high level chess than it was to write one that plays high level poker.
Poker can't be so easily calculated like chess and requires more strategy which makes it interesting. |
Not true that it is easier to write a computer program for high level chess. The sheer resources and financial dedication to designing chess-playing computers has been extraordinary, and it has taken place over a period of decades. Hardly any resources have been committed to poker programs. For example, Chris Ferguson, a professional poker player and computer scientist, has said that if a fraction of the resources that were devoted to chess programs were devoted to poker programs, they would have been able to defeat the top poker players with ease a long time ago.
Studies have shown that to become a top chess player (I will say grandmaster for the sake of argument), it takes around 10 years of serious study, training, and tournament playing. Many people have become top poker players in a couple of years, and without full-time study. This lends more to the idea that chess is a more complex game.
Top chess-players make the transition into poker quite easily. Harrington and Waterman are two examples of chess masters who are very successful as poker players. Walter Browne, chess grandmaster, recently won $180,000 in a poker tournament. Grischuk has made a lot of money playing poker. There are numerous examples. On the other hand, poker players who become good at chess are very few.
Poker is indeed a complex game, but I doubt it is more complex than chess. In poker, there is only the flop and then 2 streets, and the only possible actions are check, raise, fold, and call. In chess there are already 400 possible positions after only 1 move by each player, and the number of possible chess games exceeds the number of atoms in the universe.