3 ms·
That's only true if the humans made decisions about what computations to do after each day's play. The computations could have been determined in advance, eg. a
by mrob 10y ago
That's only true if the humans made decisions about what computations to do after each day's play. The computations could have been determined in advance, eg. always run some algorithm to analyze the opponent's play for weaknesses. That's not cheating because the human players get to do the same thing. It's impossible to enforce a "no thinking outside the game room" rule for a multi-day tournament.
- digler999 10y agoI dont think it's "cheating", but it's not just AI that's beating the humans. If operators are allowed to change/tune the AI's algorithm, the human opponent should get to replace himself with another player. or conversely, operators shouldn't be allowed to tweak the AI logic, but if they program the AI to tweak itself, like review its moves and adjust its algorithm automatically, that would be reasonable, then the AI and nothing but the AI is responsible for the victory.
- stromgo 10y agoI don't see why you call it "operator tweaking" even if the computations were determined in advance. You're asking for the poker bot to be scripted to log into the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Centre on its own and run overnight jobs there. That idea sounds extremely brittle and the challenge of making that script reliable has nothing to do with poker.