mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/07/86)
> How about in Charlie X when Captain Kirk beats Spock. Spock says something > like "Your illogical manner of playing chess sometimes has it's advantages". Hasn't anyone else noticed that this statement is idiotic? If Kirk won, how can his play be described as "illogical"? Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "What? That? It was just a filthy demon! It wasn't even from this dimension!"
barmar@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Barry Margolin) (03/10/86)
In article <24900126@uiucdcs> mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >> How about in Charlie X when Captain Kirk beats Spock. Spock says something >> like "Your illogical manner of playing chess sometimes has it's advantages". > >Hasn't anyone else noticed that this statement is idiotic? If Kirk won, how >can his play be described as "illogical"? Have you ever played a game and tried to lose while the other player is playing normally? I often do this when playing games against the computer, just for variety. It's remarkable how well you can do when trying to do poorly. The problem is that the other player makes decisions predicated on the assumption that you will be playing logically. When a player is building a move tree in his mind, he generally only expands certain branches, and makes his move based on that pruned tree; if the opponent decides to follow one of the other, less promising branches, the player's original move may turn out to be less than optimal. A good way to confound a logical player is to make completely random moves. The logic involved in strategic game playing generally involves predicting the other player's moves; this is quite difficult if the other player is random. Kirk's play was probably not random, but he probably guessed every now and then, which was enough to throw Spock's strategy off. -- Barry Margolin ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/16/86)
>>> How about in Charlie X when Captain Kirk beats Spock. Spock says something >>> like "Your illogical manner of playing chess sometimes has it's advantages". >> >>Hasn't anyone else noticed that this statement is idiotic? If Kirk won, how >>can his play be described as "illogical"? > > Have you ever played a game and tried to lose while the other player is > playing normally? I often do this when playing games against the > computer, just for variety. It's remarkable how well you can do when > trying to do poorly. The problem is that the other player makes > decisions predicated on the assumption that you will be playing > logically. When a player is building a move tree in his mind, he > generally only expands certain branches, and makes his move based on > that pruned tree; if the opponent decides to follow one of the other, > less promising branches, the player's original move may turn out to be > less than optimal. > > A good way to confound a logical player is to make completely random ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > moves. The logic involved in strategic game playing generally involves ^^^^^ > predicting the other player's moves; this is quite difficult if the > other player is random. Kirk's play was probably not random, but he > probably guessed every now and then, which was enough to throw Spock's > strategy off. In other words, this is a LOGICAL way to play against such a player, right? Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "I'm sorry, sir. According to your identification you're not even born yet. Come back in 500 years."
MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET (03/18/86)
In article <24900128@uiucdcs>, mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU says: >>>> How about in Charlie X when Captain Kirk beats Spock. Spock says something >>>> like "Your illogical manner of playing chess sometimes has it's advantages". >>> >>>Hasn't anyone else noticed that this statement is idiotic? If Kirk won, how >>>can his play be described as "illogical"? >> >> Have you ever played a game and tried to lose while the other player is >> playing normally? I often do this when playing games against the >> computer, just for variety. It's remarkable how well you can do when >> trying to do poorly. The problem is that the other player makes >> decisions predicated on the assumption that you will be playing >> logically. When a player is building a move tree in his mind, he >> generally only expands certain branches, and makes his move based on >> that pruned tree; if the opponent decides to follow one of the other, >> less promising branches, the player's original move may turn out to be >> less than optimal. >> >> A good way to confound a logical player is to make completely random > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> moves. The logic involved in strategic game playing generally involves > ^^^^^ >> predicting the other player's moves; this is quite difficult if the >> other player is random. Kirk's play was probably not random, but he >> probably guessed every now and then, which was enough to throw Spock's >> strategy off. > >In other words, this is a LOGICAL way to play against such a player, right? > > Scott McEwan You mean the logical thing to do is to play randomly, without logic? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? (Where have I heard that before?) ------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | James D. Maloy | THIS SPACE | | The Pennsylvania State University | FOR RENT | | | | | UUCP Path: ihnp4!psuvax1!miq@psuvma.bitnet | Call 555-6821 | | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "I am pleased to see we have differences. May we together become greater than the sum of both of us." -- Surak of Vulcan
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (03/21/86)
>>In other words, this is a LOGICAL way to play against such >>a player, right? > > You mean the logical thing to do is to play randomly, Or pseudo-randomly. >without logic? No, to play pseudo-randomly with logic. In game theory one often sees that the best results can be accomplished by using a randomizing element. Suppose you are playing the children's game of "which had is the candy in?" The best strategy in this game is to decide perfectly randomly which hand to put the candy in. The fact that decisions are made randomly in a process does not imply that that process is without logic. In fact it may be totally logical and still have a randomizing element. >Isn't that a contradiction in terms? (Where have I heard that >before?) Hardly. Why do you keep insisting that logic and randomness are completely incompatible? Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/22/86)
>>> A good way to confound a logical player is to make completely random >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> moves. The logic involved in strategic game playing generally involves >> ^^^^^ >>> predicting the other player's moves; this is quite difficult if the >>> other player is random. Kirk's play was probably not random, but he >>> probably guessed every now and then, which was enough to throw Spock's >>> strategy off. > >> >> In other words, this is a LOGICAL way to play against such a player, right? > > You mean the logical thing to do is to play randomly, without logic? > Isn't that a contradiction in terms? (Where have I heard that before?) Only because you are making the totally illogical assumption that playing randomly is illogical. The idea is to win the game; if playing randomly leads to victory, then it is logical to play randomly. "Random" is not the opposite of "logical". Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan "I'm sorry, sir. According to your identification you're not even born yet. Come back in 500 years."
MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET (03/23/86)
In article <1742@mtgzz.UUCP>, leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) says: >>>In other words, this is a LOGICAL way to play against such >>>a player, right? >> >> You mean the logical thing to do is to play randomly, > >Or pseudo-randomly. > >>without logic? > >No, to play pseudo-randomly with logic. In game theory one often sees >that the best results can be accomplished by using a randomizing >element. Suppose you are playing the children's game of "which had is >the candy in?" The best strategy in this game is to decide perfectly >randomly which hand to put the candy in. The fact that decisions are >made randomly in a process does not imply that that process is without >logic. In fact it may be totally logical and still have a randomizing >element. > >>Isn't that a contradiction in terms? (Where have I heard that >>before?) > >Hardly. Why do you keep insisting that logic and randomness are >completely incompatible? > Mark Leeper A long time ago in a posting far, far away, you said that "To be logical to take an illogical action is a contradiction in terms." Ever since then, I've been trying to show that it is NOT a contradiction, and that your own position on "pseudo-randomness" is proof of this. Consider the following example: I have to deliver a package to someone, and it has to be there by a certain time. I have a choice of two roads to take, road A or road B. I know that one of them is very crowded and slow at this time of day (and would prevent me from arriving on time), but I can't remember which one it is. No one else around knows either. Finally, with no other alternative, I flip a coin. Using the result of the coin flip, I decide on road A. Question: Was my decision to take road A a logical decision? Answer: NO!! I had no logical reason of any kind to pick road A over road B. Question: Was my decision to choose between the two roads with a coin flip a logical decision? Answer: YES!! With no facts available, the only logical alternative was to abandon logic and resort to randomness. Hopefully this will clear up my position once and for all. Randomness CAN become a logical alternative, but it is NOT itself logical. So, there ARE times when the logical thing to do is be illogical; but, a creature/machine that is both devoted to pure logic and loath to be illogical at any time for any reason would never see this. ------- ------------------ James D. Maloy | THIS SPACE | The Pennsylvania State University | FOR RENT | UUCP Path: ihnp4!psuvax1!psuvma.bitnet!miq | Call 555-1723 | ------------------ "I am pleased to see we have differences. May we together become greater than the sum of both of us." -- Surak of Vulcan
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (03/26/86)
>>Hardly. Why do you keep insisting that logic and >>randomness are completely incompatible? > >A long time ago in a posting far, far away, you said that >"To be logical to take an illogical action is a >contradiction in terms." Ever since then, I've been trying >to show that it is NOT a contradiction, and that your own >position on "pseudo-randomness" is proof of this. And your argument has always been that logic and random choices are incompatible. It seems to me you have just been making this false statement over and over. I was going to give you the example of evens-odds as an example of a game in which the logical thing to do is to make random choices. Another poster beat me to it by giving the same example with pennies. >Consider >the following example: I have to deliver a package to >someone, and it has to be there by a certain time. I have a >choice of two roads to take, road A or road B. I know that >one of them is very crowded and slow at this time of day >(and would prevent me from arriving on time), but I can't >remember which one it is. No one else around knows either. >Finally, with no other alternative, I flip a coin. Using >the result of the coin flip, I decide on road A. > >Question: Was my decision to take road A a logical decision? >Answer: NO!! I had no logical reason of any kind to pick road >A over road B. >Question: Was my decision to choose between the two roads >with a coin flip a logical decision? >Answer: YES!! With no facts available, the >only logical alternative was to abandon logic and resort to >randomness. The logical thing to do is use all the data at your disposal to make the best decision between two alternatives. If no data gives you any information as to which is better use a choice method and follow that choice. Your second question you have answered correctly except that it is not abandoning logic. It is choosing the most logical course of action: finding a choice algorithm and abiding by that choice. You are absolutely wrong on your first answer though. The logical reason you had for choosing A is that you had picked a choice algorithm (logically as you admit) and it told you to take road A. You are merely complying with the choice algorithm that you have logically chosen. > >Hopefully this will clear up my position once and for all. >Randomness CAN become a logical alternative, but it is NOT >itself logical. If we are going to word this precisely, randomness is a statistical condition that is neither logical nor illogical. Those adjectives don't apply to the word "randomness" itself. The decision that an optimal choice algorithm available to you includes a randomizing element can be a logical decision as you say above. The decision to follow the dictates of an optimal choice algorithm is ALWAYS logical. (Please note, incidently, we say AN optimal choice algorithm, not THE optimal choice algorithm. Another choice algorithm that gives you another answer can also be optimal. But it better give you an answer that it just as good based on the data you have.) Oh, and it should be noted for others getting involved in this discussion that I never claimed that Kirk or McCoy could not beat Spock in a generalized game of chess. The original question dealt with Spock not being able to find a way out of check and another player finding one. Finding a way out of check is a much simpler problem than simply winning and a logical mind like Spock's should find a way out if anyone could. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/27/86)
> A long time ago in a posting far, far away, you said that "To be logical > to take an illogical action is a contradiction in terms." And I agreed to it. It seems so obvious to me that I'm amazed that anyone would argue against it. > Ever since then, > I've been trying to show that it is NOT a contradiction, and that your own > position on "pseudo-randomness" is proof of this. Mark also said: >Hardly. Why do you keep insisting that logic and randomness are >completely incompatible? which you don't seem to understand. I will state it again: saying that an action is random DOES NOT automatically imply that it is illogical. > Consider the following example: I have to deliver a package to someone, > and it has to be there by a certain time. I have a choice of two roads to > take, road A or road B. I know that one of them is very crowded and slow at > this time of day (and would prevent me from arriving on time), but I can't > remember which one it is. No one else around knows either. Finally, with no > other alternative, I flip a coin. Using the result of the coin flip, I decide > on road A. > > Question: Was my decision to take road A a logical decision? > Answer: NO!! I had no logical reason of any kind to pick road A > over road B. WRONG! Since both roads have the same probability of being the "correct" road, ANY method of selecting between them is logical. An illogical decision would be to take road C, which doesn't go where you want to, or to select randomly when the probabilities are NOT equal. > Question: Was my decision to choose between the two roads with a > coin flip a logical decision? > Answer: YES!! With no facts available, the only logical > alternative was to abandon logic and resort to randomness. Right and wrong. While I obviously agree that the choice was logical, it is not true that "the only logical alternative was to abandon logic and resort to randomness" on two points: 1) logic is not abandoned, and 2) resorting to randomness is not the only alternative; ANY method of selecting a road is equally logical. > > Hopefully this will clear up my position once and for all. Randomness > CAN become a logical alternative, but it is NOT itself logical. So, there ARE > times when the logical thing to do is be illogical; but, a creature/machine > that is both devoted to pure logic and loath to be illogical at any time for > any reason would never see this. I think all you've proven is that you're schizophrenic. Scott McEwan {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan Green s/m watchlizard seeks s/f/wl - object: companionship. Reply Box 23, Cynosure.