Computer fails to beat humans in Carnegie Mellon poker faceoff

Carnegie Mellon’s poker-playing AI fell short of victory in an 80,000-hand faceoff with human pros.

AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee
A poker dealer is shown during a game at a Miami casino in 2011.

Claudico has the best poker face in the game. That’s because it doesn’t have a face at all.

Developed by a team of Carnegie Mellon computer scientists led by Prof. Tuomas Sandholm, Claudico is a poker-playing artificial intelligence that specializes in no-limit Texas Hold’em, a two-player variant with unlimited betting. And while the program is far from unbeatable, it is a worthy competitor.

At a grueling two-week competition at Rivers Casino in Pittsburgh, Claudico proved its mettle against four top poker players. Human professionals Bjorn Li, Doug Polk, Dong Kim, and Jason Les each faced off with the program, playing 80,000 hands between them. No real money was wagered, although a $100,000 donation from Rivers Casino and Microsoft was split between the players based on their performance.

At the end of the competition, Claudico came up short by a combined margin of $732,713. But since $170 million was "wagered" overall, the loss was considered statistically insignificant. So as far as researchers are concerned, the bout ended in an encouraging tie.

"We knew Claudico was the strongest computer poker program in the world, but we had no idea before this competition how it would fare against four Top 10 poker players," Dr. Sandholm said in a press release. "It would have been no shame for Claudico to lose to a set of such talented pros, so even pulling off a statistical tie with them is a tremendous achievement."

As an incomplete information game, poker is the perfect testbed for artificial intelligence. By developing programs capable of decision-making with limited information, researchers can then apply them to broader human problems. At the University of Alberta, computer scientists have already “solved” a simpler variation of poker with a program called Cepheus.

"The real world is a whole lot like a poker game," said Michael Bowling, lead developer of Cepheus, in a previous Monitor story. "One of the things we have to cope with in making any real world decision is uncertainty. Humans can deal with uncertainty. We’re still able to make reasonable decisions. Poker embodies that uncertainty. If we’re going to build artificial intelligence systems that can answer complex real-world problems, they need to deal with uncertainty. So looking at this through the lens of gaming is actually easier."

Cepheus plays Limit Hold'em, a game in which carefully-structured betting results in a finite number of possible in-game choices. But in No-limit Texas Hold’em, Claudico’s game of choice, there is no betting cap. Players can bluff with huge bets, thus skewing perceived odds. The result is an incredibly unpredictable game that will prove much more difficult to "solve."

To that end, Sandholm and colleagues are already improving Claudico’s algorithms. With 80,000 hands of data to work with, they hope their program will soon surpass human players. But that will only be another step in the quest for true artificial intelligence.

"Beating humans isn't really our goal; it's just a milestone along the way," Sandholm said. "What we want to do is create an artificial intelligence that can help humans negotiate or make decisions in situations where they can't know all of the facts."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.