ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (03/20/86)
>>> 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?) The point is that randomly does NOT mean "without logic", that in fact the most logical move can be a random decision. I am cross-posting this to net.math to see if any game theorists can confirm this... (can you?) -- "Father, they DO know what they are doing!" Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (03/23/86)
> >>> 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?) > The point is that randomly does NOT mean "without logic", that in fact > the most logical move can be a random decision. I am cross-posting this to > net.math to see if any game theorists can confirm this... (can you?) Yes, logical play in a two-player, zero-sum, discrete, finite, perfect-information, non-cooperative* game in general actually REQUIRES the use of a device for making a weighted random choice among several alternative pure strategies. A good, although rather dated, elementary introduction to this subject can be found in "The Compleat Strategist", written long ago by someone (whose name I have unfortunately forgotten) from the Rand Corp. * I wonder if I included enough qualifiers.
lambert@boring.UUCP (03/24/86)
> ... in "The Compleat Strategist", written long ago by someone > (whose name I have unfortunately forgotten) from the Rand Corp. J.D. Williams, The Compleat Strategyst, McGraw-Hill, 1954. -- Lambert Meertens ...!{seismo,okstate,garfield,decvax,philabs}!lambert@mcvax.UUCP CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam
steve@jplgodo.UUCP (Steve Schlaifer x3171 156/224) (03/25/86)
In article <2014@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.UUCP writes: > Yes, logical play in a two-player, zero-sum, discrete, finite, > perfect-information, non-cooperative* game in general actually > REQUIRES the use of a device for making a weighted random choice > among several alternative pure strategies. A good, although > rather dated, elementary introduction to this subject can be > found in "The Compleat Strategist", written long ago by someone > (whose name I have unfortunately forgotten) from the Rand Corp. > The revised edition of "The Compleat Strategyst" written by J. D. Williams was published by McGraw-Hill in 1966. It was from a RAND corporation research study. Copyright dates are given as 1954 and 1966 RAND corporation. -- ...smeagol\ Steve Schlaifer ......wlbr->!jplgodo!steve Advance Projects Group, Jet Propulsion Labs ....group3/ 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 156/204 Pasadena, California, 91109 +1 818 354 3171
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (03/27/86)
Here is a very simple game in which it is logical to make random decisions. Each of us puts a penny on the table, covered by a hand so the other cannot see it. We then both remove our hands from the pennies. If they match, you win. If not, I win.