In 1997, the best chess player in the world was defeated by a

>>51269833
Probably never, because there's so many hole's in the systems that it would error out every time something happened.

>>51269833
>better than any human?
Never? Since one can not "Win" the game.

And if you question is when can a computer player the game? They answer is not fucking soon enough. I'd love to be able to log online and do a 1 on 1 DM-Player session anytime I wanted.

>>51269833
LMAO NICE GAME CHESSKIDDIES

>play DND better
Literally a meaningless statement. D&D has no win conditions. How the fuck one plays D&D good is entirely based in circumstance and fluctuates by the person, region, edition, and relevant rules utilized within that edition (e.g. playing a module or whatever).
Do I win D&D if I die in the first round of combat?
Do I win D&D if I create an invincible character that can defeat every statblock in existence?

>>51269833
What are the victory parameters of D&D? Computers need that kind of thing, facts and figures. Subjectivity is a little harder, thus CAPTCHA.

Store Fronts again.

>>51269833
>>51269855
Now, would the DM be a human, or a prefabricated quest with random generated encounters and items?

We all know that computers don't actually take calculated risk, they just evaluate the possible outcome of many actions, so the game would at most be quite boring.

>>51269833

Yes, but can an unfeeling machine ever know what it is to Cataan?

>>51269833
you dont have to roll a dice to win at either of those games

luck is a factor you cant teach

>>51269973
I'm sure you can teach probability analysis, though. Given how humans are notoriously bad at it, I'd not be surprised if artificial intelligence could be better.

>>51269921
Either way, it wouldn't help the machine. On both player and DM side, there are so many holes in what you can and can't do, you would need an actual perfect system (good luck with that) to actually have a computerized system do it.

>>51269833
1975, back when the first text adventure games were made.

>>51269833
After a computer can play chess and go better than any human.

>>51269833
Pretty much this >>51269886
It's a completely nonsense question unless you mean something like "When will a computer be able to pass some kind of DnD based super Turing test?" but that's still a question which can't be answered and may not have an answer.

>>51269833
If by "play better" you mean the most mechanically efficient min-maxing metagaming then you could probably do it now if the game was purely RAW rules but then most games aren't. Even when people try to go "by the book" they often fuck up rules to various degrees and inject a heavy dose of dm fiat.

>>51270768
And, again, the rules in and of themselves have pretty heavy holes in them, dependent a lot on wording and other such semantic issue's.

>>51269833
That would imply a computer can beat a game like Dwarf Fortress or something.
There's no hard win condition.

File: 1435761396613.gif (3MB, 291x300px)

3MB, 291x300px

And just think that there are people who still play perfect information games with no random elements.

>>51269833
Never, because the player only wins if the gm allows it.

Also because dnd is a team game, it would rely to heavily on the rest.

>>51269833
Am I the only one who noticed the robot's penis?