simple, three is always correct.
What is the square root of 9?
What time are we having tea?
What lap are we on?
How does a little kid pronounce tree?
Game Theory - Perfect Strategy?
Sort:
Dec 8, 2010
0
#23
psyduck wrote:
simple, three is always correct.
What is the square root of 9?
What time are we having tea?
What lap are we on?
How does a little kid pronounce tree?
Oh. Thanks.
There is no defense, or offense for that matter. It is a game that depends on possible strategic outcomes of your own playing style.
RubyScripter wrote:
There is no defense, or offense for that matter. It is a game that depends on possible strategic outcomes of your own playing style.
Wow. Deep.
Deep something, anyway.
Any player of chess would not want to solve this problem, only ponder it...
[COMMENT DELETED]
Dec 10, 2010
0
#28
josh_blackheart wrote:
I believe that by applying Game Theory and Mathematics, in the generations to come, we will be able to figure out the optimal strategy for playing chess.
OK, I'll bite. What kind of insights might game theory provide that chess players don't already know?
[COMMENT DELETED]
Dec 10, 2010
0
#30
OK, I'll bite again. How do you propose to factor these moves out? How will mathematicians know which moves deserve attention and which do not?
[COMMENT DELETED]
Dec 10, 2010
0
#32
Erm. What aspects of game theory exactly? I thought you might have stumbled on some startling breakthrough here.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Dec 10, 2010
0
#34
My first C# program was a rather satisfying tictactoe program, designed to be beatable. I was inspired by the fact that Bill Games attempted to write a tictactoe program for the first microcomputer he had (never completed, if I recall).
To a game theorist, chess is not any more complicated than tictactoe, it just has a larger tree, and the same theorem applies that there is a correct result for the game which should always be reached if both players do not make an error. Of course the fact that the correct result for tictactoe is a draw is well-known and easy to prove, but it is merely a strongly believed conjecture that the correct result for chess is a draw. While traditional computers are noywhere near being able to answer the question for chess, there is a vague possibility that quantum computers might manage to sometime this century.
I wonder how close we might come to perfect play if we had teams of masters playing vote chess, as we do here on this site, only with the provision that moves can be taken back as far back as they want to go. In other words, if, after the 26th move, it becomes clear that the 14th move was not ideal and a better one was available, then that "team" may go back to the 14th move and now play the better move. Obviously, the intent of such an exercise would not be to see who wins or loses; indeed, masters could even play on both sides, black and white. The goal is to try to identify the best moves possible, play it out until one side or the other wins (or there is a draw), and then go back and ask if at any point during the game a better move might have been available. In theory, such a game could last forever, like an eternal flame, and accept input from any and all interested parties (even computers).
Dec 10, 2010
0
#36
Elroch wrote:
My first C# program was a rather satisfying tictactoe program, designed to be beatable. I was inspired by the fact that Bill Games attempted to write a tictactoe program for the first microcomputer he had (never completed, if I recall).
To a game theorist, chess is not any more complicated than tictactoe, it just has a larger tree, and the same theorem applies that there is a correct result for the game which should always be reached if both players do not make an error. Of course the fact that the correct result for tictactoe is a draw is well-known and easy to prove, but it is merely a strongly believed conjecture that the correct result for chess is a draw. While traditional computers are noywhere near being able to answer the question for chess, there is a vague possibility that quantum computers might manage to sometime this century.
Elroch, what do you think of C# ? I used it for the first time about 3 years ago (had been exclusively a C++ programmer before that). Despite my initial prejudices, I've come to love C# (and .NET generally).
As I read somewhere I do not rememer where(I am not a computer than God!) some time in the (very distant I hope)future the computer will announce on its(thankfully not his or her)first move- mate in 295.And neither you nor any engine playing against it will be able to do anything about it.
But then thats not chess.Its "a struggle" as the cliched saying goes.The computer and its "discoveries" are only for enhancing our pleasure and understanding of the game and I hope it remains that way not just in the foreseeable future but for all time to come.
Elroch wrote:
My first C# program was a rather satisfying tictactoe program, designed to be beatable. I was inspired by the fact that Bill Games attempted to write a tictactoe program for the first microcomputer he had (never completed, if I recall).
To a game theorist, chess is not any more complicated than tictactoe, it just has a larger tree, and the same theorem applies that there is a correct result for the game which should always be reached if both players do not make an error. Of course the fact that the correct result for tictactoe is a draw is well-known and easy to prove, but it is merely a strongly believed conjecture that the correct result for chess is a draw. While traditional computers are noywhere near being able to answer the question for chess, there is a vague possibility that quantum computers might manage to sometime this century.
That's rather interesting, for I have created a Tic-Tac-Toe program out of the MS-DOS language(which I now use Ruby) and run it as a batch file. It uses variational CPU directives to determine where the computer shall place it's next move. Thus, it is a thought process of an AI, but retains some random optimizers.
Dec 10, 2010
0
#39
Josh, you said, "The games of chess can't last forever because of certain rules, so its a finite game".
Which is simplification. The number of possible games in chess is at least a google (10 to the power of 100), and possibly larger than a googleplex (10 to the power of 100 to the power of 100). We may very well go the way of the dinosaurs before chess is played out.
In addition, there may be other way of determining the outcome of a chess game yet undiscovered. How would one determine an incomplete game? Could that be one more category?
Just some thoughts on your proposition ...
Barefoot_Player
Barefoot_Player wrote:
Josh, you said, "The games of chess can't last forever because of certain rules, so its a finite game".
Which is simplification. The number of possible games in chess is at least a google (10 to the power of 100), and possibly larger than a googleplex (10 to the power of 100 to the power of 100). We may very well go the way of the dinosaurs before chess is played out.
In addition, there may be other way of determining the outcome of a chess game yet undiscovered. How would one determine an incomplete game? Could that be one more category?
Just some thoughts on your proposition ...
Barefoot_Player
This being said, it shows a valid thought of such propositions or of relativity. Its very deep. Complex. Simply, grand mind schematics. I agree with this posting.
2. Chess is a guaranteed win for black - there's nothing that white can do to stop this, unless black makes a mistake.
3. Chess is a guaranteed draw - like tic-tac-toe; neither player ever wins unless someone makes a mistake.
Teacher grading paper.
1. Not correct
2. Not correct
3. Correct
33.3% correct. F ;)
You're a teacher aren't you, Musikamole? How did you find out that "3." is correct?