ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Poker-playing robots and more

Posted: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:08 PM by Alan Boyle

One year after a famous man-vs.-machine poker tournament, the machine finally won out over a team of living, breathing poker professionals. The University of Alberta's Polaris poker-playing software came from behind for the victory in a six-round match held July 3-6 at the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.

The outcome wasn't clear until the final scores were tallied up from the final game. Each of the games involved 500 hands of limit hold 'em, with Polaris playing head-to-head against each of the professionals. In the end, Polaris won three of the games, the humans won two, and one was a draw.

Polaris' programmers rejoiced.

"It's hard to describe how good that felt," research team leader Michael Bowling said in a report from the University of Alberta. "As a group, we may not all be great poker players, but all of us really, really want to win."

Bowling pointed out that this was just a first step. "This was really the simplest form of poker," he said. "There's a lot more we can look at, such as playing without betting limits, or playing with more than two opponents. One of the reasons I got excited about this line of research is that it's not just a one-off. It's a really challenging path of research."

Historically, computers have been better at games where all the information is essentially out there on the board - for instance, chess and checkers. Poker is trickier, because players have to make judgments based on different amounts of information about the state of play.

"In general, problems in the real world are going to be more like poker than chess," Bowling said.

For more about the latest "man-vs.-machine" battle, check out the Web sites for the Polaris research team and the Stoxpoker team of elite players.

Polaris and other pokerbots have been around for years, and it's almost a given that some of those bots have been employed on online gaming sites against not-so-professional human players. Check out this archived report on the subject from Michael Brunker, one of my colleagues at msnbc.com, and this more recent report on a real-money pokerbot (it's actually the first part of an ongoing series).

If robo-poker isn't your cup of tea, here are some other weekend field trips you can take on the Web:

  • The nonprofit Planetary Society says it is extending the deadline for sending your name to the moon. Now you have until July 25 to add your name to the list. The names will be digitized, stored on a microchip and placed on NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which is due for launch late this year. As I noted back in May, you can even print out a certificate recognizing your participation in the project.

  • Something funny seems to be going on at the sun. Or more accurately, not going on. The sun is at the low point of its 11-year activity cycle, and it's been that way for going on three years. Some observers have wondered whether the solar minimum is lasting an abnormally long time, but on the Science @ NASA Web site, solar physicist David Hathaway says the current quiet phase "is well within historic norms for the solar cycle." Space.com had a story last month about the eerie calm and is passing along the calming follow-up today.

  • So how are we doing? A survey of more than 1,300 scientists from around the world, published in this week's issue of the journal Science, indicates that scientists now think science writers aren't so bad after all. "Scientists actually see rewards in this process, not just pitfalls," study co-author Sharon Dunwoody, a journalism professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, said in a news release about the survey. The respondents included scientists from the United States, Britain, France, Germany and Japan. You can get the international perspective from University College London and the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centers - and there's even an MP3 audio interview with study director Hans Peter Peters.

The last word, as always, is yours. What do you think about the rise of the pokerbots, the state of the solar cycle or the state of science in society? Feel free to add your comments below.

Update for 4:54 p.m. ET July 13: I've revised the reference to how pokerbots are being used on gaming Web sites, in response to comments below.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

who were the poker pros?
it makes a big difference...some are math wizards, some play the guy across from them...who lost?
if it's math guys, it may mean something...if
'table players', it don't mean much except luck...
The survey in SCIENCE says that more scientists are satisfied with their latest media coverage (though 57% is not a stellar performance). Also, there is more coverage of science in the popular media than in the past. However, the general population is no more science literate -- of either the content or the process -- than it has been in the past, and in fact seems to be losing ground. I credit all these to the same cause.

Many science articles in the popular media are written like, if not written from, press releases. They frequently present a single result as though it were a revelation or a discovery. This makes for good "headliner" copy and certainly makes the scientist(s) look good which pleases them. However, this is done as formula, without regard to the facts that the work is almost invariably the present end point of a long line of work, and may in fact be only a reaffirmation, refinement, or minor and obvious extension of previously known facts. This is hardly journalism, and I hesitate to even call it science writing, since the same process is used to cover myriad topics by writers with no knowledge of the subject beyond the fact that their editor(s) expect them to perform. This lack of knowledge translates to the average reader who is confronted with just another sensationalization and who passes through it with no more absorption than similar writings from other areas afford. I believe most scientists recognize this and are not pleased, but the recognition gained translates to greater acceptance and therefore greater grant awards, and THAT speaks the language of scientists these days. I've not just watched this happen from the outside, either.

There is still much understandable hesitation to being covered, quoted or even mentioned in the popular media, I believe for the reasons above. I was immensely tickled when the project I did my dissertation for was mentioned in "Thank You For Smoking" ("Why, they've just found that smoking can offset Parkinson's disease.") However, when I brought this up to one of the project leaders, he was fairly displeased. He neither needed the recognition nor would be much damaged by negative opinions of other researchers, sitting in an endowed chair and having been his home state's Professor Of The Year not long ago. I've since come to understand his wordless scowling response to the news much better. People sit up and notice when I mention the movie reference. Bit that's what they notice. They have no desire to understand the long lines of research that converged in this project or even the implications of the results. As a scientist, I can get more money by making use of this, but as an educator, which is what I believe every scientist is either indirectly or directly, I get nothing useful from it.

Present company is, of course, excluded. Alan's writing is true science journalism, both educational and entertaining in content. I can only hope he finds more time in his busy schedule to serve more often as an educator for future science journalists needed to counter the surge of press release (re)writers with no knowledge of the subject or of actual creative and educational writing.
The human players were professionals who have each earned more than a million dollars playing poker.  Among them was probably the single best human player in the world in heads-up Limit Hold'em -- Matt "Hoss_TBF" Hawrilenko.  Polaris took on some of the best, and won by a significant margin in overall play.


The statement "it's almost a given that some of those bots have been employed by online gaming sites" is both FALSE and irresponsible.  It is in the best interest of online sites to maintain the fairest games possible, and at least two sites (PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker) spend millions of dollars to ensure the highest level of integrity in their games.

There is no doubt that some bots have been used to play poker online, but it is done by individuals, in violation of the site's terms and conditions.  Polaris is the product of scientific research, and has never been used for this purpose.

 - Dr. Darse Billings (founder and lead architect of the U of A Computer Poker Research Group).
Thanks, Dr. Billings: If there seems to be any implication that Polaris has been used in this way, I want to strike that down immediately. I've also changed the wording of the item to reflect the view that although it's almost a given that bots have been used on poker sites, it's not a given that the bots are employed by the site operators themselves. That would be going too far, and I thank Darse for setting me straight.
Hi Dr. Billings,
I don't know Hoss...but, there were six players according to Alan's article.
Lots of guys have won a million total.
I wondered if all were internet players, or table players.
Could the machine negate the skills of Chan, or the math wizardry of Ferguson, or David Grey?
The odds will pay off in favor of the math eventually...wouldn't they...that's what they show, eh?
Were there enough hands played that luck and skill were erased?
Did the machine have to show caution in fear of losing all its money at the table?
How was the betting determined?
Does the gadget bluff, or just play odds.
Was it most hands won, or most money won?
That's a pretty significant factor in the game.
Thanks!
come on.  One on One, the computer got to win sooner or later.  A real challenge is at a table with eight other players
Poker for humans (when playing against other people) has some level of psychology in it; reading body language, knowing some of the past of the person as well as what room is like.  This could be the first step to having AI that can make the intution leaps that humans have.  Did these machines bluff alot?
One of the ways they used to eliminate luck was that for each match there were two human players playing on two separate machines in two separate room. The hand dealt to the player on one machine would be dealt to the AI on the other machine, and vise-versa. The outcome of the match was determined by the combined score both players against the combined score of the machines. I believe each match consisted of 500 hands to try to reduce the luck some more.
There is no doubt that some poker bots have been used to play poker online, but it is done by individuals. There is several posts in 2+2 regarding bots in full tilt poker and i dont think that Polaris is the product of scientific research, and has never been used for this purpose.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1195348

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google