Robot pool player ...

[DandyA]

This machine is unbelievably strong, I really wonder whether it could be fitted into snooker.
It would be good if Ronnie vs Deep Green happened

now that is a good idea - that would get huge publicity - the best human vs the best robot ...

as well as a snooker afficianado, I also love chess so the games vs say Deep Blue vs so-and-so were fun ... but the best ever was the whole of the UK vs a GrandMaster on late night TV - must have been late 80's ... I can't remember the GM ...

the GM was in a sealed room, the TV viewers dialled a number to choose their move ... the GM won ... think about it - one player (a GM) can beat all the chess players in the UK ...

I once had the pleasure to see Raymond Keene in action at the Brighton Pavilion taking on 50 boards of the Brighton Chess Club simultaneously ... he won 48, he drew 2 ... he drew against the Brighton captain (presumably diplomatic) and he drew against a 9yr boy (presumably cos he thought the little chap had played a good game and he wanted to encourage him) ...

The other 48 of us just got beat and had to admire his amazing skill ...

So yes, ROS vs Deep Green is a great idea ... huge publicity ... Ferret - you must have some phone numbers - get phoning!

[montoya10]

Still, if this machine does not miss anything, ROS will not stand any chances of winning unless his safety level is something near perfect.

Anyway, I would prefer The Welsh Potting Machine vs The Machine in a game based on the mantra "Let's pot the ball and then see what happens". That would be absolutely entertaining.

[Giggity1984]

They missed a trick though, should have called it "Deep Screw".

I believe the name is a tip of the hat to the chess computer "Deep Blue". So, yes "Deep Screw" would have been better. :-)

[bkpaul]

Cool idea, a robot snooker player, I doubt it will ever happen though and if it does it will not be world champion, there are far too many "unknowns" in snooker and all AI solutions have been proved to be flawed where a draw is not possible.

When programming a computer to play a game you don't program it to win, you program it not to lose and by virtue of that they will usually draw or win.

They don't make mistakes as such but they have also no flair (intuition) and as such they cannot play the unexpected or take a leap of faith.

Mathematics is forumla and as such factually driven sport is not albeit mathematics plays a large part in sport.

I am not saying a computer using AI would not be a stiff test for most players as it probably would be but..........

[Templeton Peck]

Snooker would be a bit more of a challenge for sure, but AI solutions don't really look upon solutions as winning, or not losing etc, they just rank them in order of preference. Obviously the solution that offers the greater probability of a win is ranked above others. The thing with pool is that it needs to only consider one ball at a time so really there is no AI involved here; in snooker it would need to think about 3/4 shots ahead - no real problem there - but also consider options for opening the pack and possible safety if it finds itself snookered which is where many of the chess algorithms would come in. Chess is a far more complex game though, and in snooker there aren't that many tactical decisions to be made at any one time. If there isn't an obvious pot, you can go for a tough one or play a safety. There are usually 2/3 obvious safeties on so the algorithmic challenges facing snooker are not in the same league as those in chess. I doubt Ronnie would miss if he had a laser guide on his cue, so the robot would have to lose that to make it fair which would make missing possible, although to what extent I don't know. Still it's great to see something like this - if they're doing this now then 40 years is probably a gross overestimate.

[noel]

[QUOTE=Templeton Peck;420641]Still it's great to see something like this...QUOTE]

As in the story... God made Man in His image. Now we make Robots in Man's.

[ I wonder who/what will be getting the "Deep Screwing" ? ]


=o\

Noel

[DandyA]

I believe the name is a tip of the hat to the chess computer "Deep Blue". So, yes "Deep Screw" would have been better. :-)

yep, quite right Giggity ... "Deep Green" is clearly a play on words with "Deep Blue" (which was an IBM computer and their corporate colour is blue hence the name) ...

but I think this is a huge marketing opportunity ... Ferret - get on the phone to Barry Hearn can't you?

in chess, the moves are clearly defined, there are no vagaries of the nap, I don't know the current state but certainly as of say 1990 although computers could do like 100,000,000 calculations per second, a GM would still win doing say 100 calculations per *minute* - but the important ones ...

in snooker, it's a lot different ... there are an awful lot of factors to take into account (the way the tables is playing) - nap, weight of each ball, cushions etc ...

I wouldn't like to call the winner and it'd certainly make great TV!

[bkpaul]

If they make a robot that can win any ranking event or for that matter beat consistently any PIOS player in my lifetime (30 - 40 years) I will buy it (would be a great practice partner, but it has to be able to count and field out as well )