Hacker News .hnnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Chess and poker are fundamentally different problems. Unfortunately this argument is going to come down to arguing about the definition of "complex" and things like that.

But I will still reiterate these points:

1. A great deal more effort has gone into computer chess than computer poker. When that amount of effort is put into computer poker, computers will be better than humans at poker.

2. The argument can be made that poker is harder or more complex than chess for computers, but the opposite is definitely true of humans today. If you don't study chess hard from the age of ten and then dedicate your life to it starting in your teens, you can't be the best. The amount of study (not playing) is probably an order of magnitude difference. In practice this means that any great chess player could switch to poker, study hard, play hard, and have a chance at making it, but no great poker players could switch to chess.

Fundamentally, sports in which real money is gambled will probably never reach the competitive level of play of non-gambling sports. Chess has a rating system and is setup so that the players of similar calibar play each other. Contrast this with poker where professionals are always actively seeking to play against worse players (with higher bank rolls).



1. I disagree, as do the few people I've met who work on it. 2. The dedication required is, in large part, due to the number of people who study the game, social attitudes towards it, and the wealth of information available. It has nothing whatsoever to do with complexity.

Poker is far more competitive than chess. Show me a chess game that runs every night with buy-ins in the hundreds of thousands.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: