toddv@copper.UUCP (Todd Vierheller) (03/19/86)
[DAVE PAGAN DAVE PAGAN DAVE PAGAN DAVE PAGAN DAVE PAGAN DAVE PAGAN ]
When I was in high school I used to play chess. One fellow who beat me
consistently had a very unusual style of play. His undoing of my plans
was uncanny. I (wrongly) made assumptions like, "He won't trade his rook
for that pawn." Without fail, in the midst of one of my "plans", he would
pull some wacko stunt like that and seriously goof up my whole game.
He had no qualms about giving me the superior pieces in a trade. And he
had no consistency either. A blatently irrational move every now and then
can really screw up a chess game.
Of course, his crazy moves didn't catch him by surprise. He didn't have to
reformulate his plans. It was a very effective tactic against me. (It's
incredibly hard to play chess without making some guess about your opponents
expected behavior.)
I can understand how Kirk could beat Spock with such tactics. Only if the
"rational" chess player is substantially better than his "irrational" opponent,
could he easily overcome such play. Maybe Spock only lost once in a while to
these tactics.
The question actually comes down to whether or not Spock was willing or able
to keep every game tree in his head during each move of the game. I think to
do so would have been impossible even for Spock. Spock probably used a subset
based on the logical move for Kirk to make. And Kirk could therefore throw him
a surprise every now and then.
(And don't tell me Star Trek was merely a TV show. That's what *they* want you
to think . . .)
Todd Vierheller
Software Development Products
Tektronix, Inc.
Me? Express opinions? Was I rambling again? My fingers typed this letter
without my company's or my brain's knowledge.plw@panda.UUCP (Pete Williamson) (03/21/86)
>pull some wacko stunt like that and seriously goof up my whole game. >He had no qualms about giving me the superior pieces in a trade. And he >had no consistency either. A blatently irrational move every now and then >can really screw up a chess game. A blatently irrational move should not screw up a chess game. It should merely shorten it. >I can understand how Kirk could beat Spock with such tactics. Only if the >"rational" chess player is substantially better than his "irrational" opponent, >could he easily overcome such play. Maybe Spock only lost once in a while to >these tactics. Chess has rules. Unless Kirk can change the rules, he should NEVER be able to beat Spock, given what we "know" about the two characters. You can't bluff in Chess. Illogical moves are weak moves. Spock would crush Kirk. Kirk might beat Spock in Poker, but I wouldn't even bet on that. (Think of the POKER face that Spock could give you !!) However, in an unknown "game" or Command situation, give me Kirk EVERY TIME. >The question actually comes down to whether or not Spock was willing or able >to keep every game tree in his head during each move of the game. I think to >do so would have been impossible even for Spock. Spock probably used a subset >based on the logical move for Kirk to make. And Kirk could therefore throw him >a surprise every now and then. The subset is based on move strength, not on "rationality index". -- Pete Williamson "By hook or by crook, we will !!" ... #2
daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) (03/22/86)
Wasn't the chess game in its final stages? I thought I remembered Spock saying something like "Mate in <n>" (where n is between 5 and 10). To do that and to be wrong is rather illogical. Oh well. So it goes. david rickel
toddv@copper.UUCP (Todd Vierheller) (03/28/86)
[EAT ME] +>pull some wacko stunt like that and seriously goof up my whole game. +>He had no qualms about giving me the superior pieces in a trade. And he +>had no consistency either. A blatantly irrational move every now and then +>can really screw up a chess game. + +A blatantly irrational move should not screw up a chess game. It should +merely shorten it. Not true. (Have you ever played chess?) If Player A builds little scenarios in his head which expect (require) Player B to do the logical thing, he (A) is in a world of hurt if Player B does something weird. The move definitely hurts Player B, but it hurts Player A more because he has committed himself to a (now) faulty plan. (With Bobby Fisher against me, yes it would shorten the game. With me against a duplicate of myself, it would merely be confusing. After all, *I* certainly know how I expect a duplicate of myself to play.) +>I can understand how Kirk could beat Spock with such tactics. Only if the +>"rational" chess player is substantially better than his "irrational" +>opponent, could he easily overcome such play. Maybe Spock only lost once in +>a while to these tactics. + +Chess has rules. Unless Kirk can change the rules, he should NEVER be able +to beat Spock, given what we "know" about the two characters. You can't +bluff in Chess. Illogical moves are weak moves. Spock would crush Kirk. +Kirk might beat Spock in Poker, but I wouldn't even bet on that. (Think of +the POKER face that Spock could give you !!) However, +in an unknown "game" or Command situation, give me Kirk EVERY TIME. You miss the point. The unexpected irrational move isn't a bluff. It's a strategic move by the "irrational" player who realizes that "Hmmm... Spock probably has a pretty good plan going for him about now. I bet he didn't dream in a million years I'd give up my queen to his bishop two moves from now." (Of course, this requires Kirk to make a plan based on his (irrational to Spock) behavior.) + +>The question actually comes down to whether or not Spock was willing or able +>to keep every game tree in his head during each move of the game. NOTE THAT PREVIOUS SENTENCE. +>I think to do so would have been impossible even for Spock. Spock probably +>used a subset based on the logical move for Kirk to make. And Kirk could +> therefore throw him a surprise every now and then. + +The subset is based on move strength, not on "rationality index". + Move strength is certainly isn't based on irrationality. One expects the opposing player to do what is best in the short term as well as the long term. (Ie. He won't trade both his bishops to take my rook.) + +Pete Williamson + + Todd Vierheller Food for thought: Spock knows how the computer plays. What if the darn thing made a "foolish" move without warning late in one of Spock's scenarios? Spock might still win, but it would sure goof up his play.
coatta@utcsri.UUCP (Terry Coatta) (03/31/86)
In article <240@copper.UUCP> toddv@copper.UUCP (Todd Vierheller) writes: > + > +The subset is based on move strength, not on "rationality index". > + > >Move strength is certainly isn't based on irrationality. One expects the >opposing player to do what is best in the short term as well as the long term. >(Ie. He won't trade both his bishops to take my rook.) > > + +Pete Williamson The subset is based on move strength as calculated at that point in the game. For the ranking to work well, the evaluation function must perform well -- that is it must look at a board poistion and make a good "guess" as to whether that board position can lead to a win. It is quite possible for the evaluation function to give a high ranking to a bad board position if the the reason the board position is bad is that a fairly complicated set of moves is required for the opposing player to take advantage of it. The only way to play chess perfectly is to maintain the entire game tree, if you don't there is always the possibility that way far down one of the branches you have pruned off there is a win lurking for your opponent.