4 ms·

When Watson won Jeopardy, its lead designer thought a 5 ms reaction time was fair because one time a human anticipating the buzzer light got 2 ms. Of course to

When Watson won Jeopardy, its lead designer thought a 5 ms reaction time was fair because one time a human anticipating the buzzer light got 2 ms. Of course to any reasonable person a consistent 5 ms is obviously vastly superior to once in a blue moon lottery-winning luck. Sounds like it's the same deal here, where the designers made some effort to level the interface playing field, but also left in some advantages like instantly being able to select individual units (or whatever it was the other players felt was not humanly possible to do). Probably because, at some level, they really want their system to win.

kingkawn 7y ago
Yes, the point of the entire project was for the system to see if it can win. If we have reached the point where to even risk a loss requires implementing artificial restraints on the AI...well...
- Enginerrrd 7y ago
  They aren't really artificial restraints though, more like artificial advantages without them. The interface delay challenges are pretty relevant to making things fair in almost ANY competition. The physical part of the interface is an essential part of the game here. You aren't really testing the thing you really want to test otherwise. You could probably play tennis pretty well against Nadal if you made him wear goggles that gave him a quarter second delay in response time, but that's not really a fair test. All other things being equal, if you match up two chess players, and one can just say or think the position instead of having to physically move the piece before they hit the clock, that advantage will accumulate over time.
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
    I wonder if implementing tactical pause would eliminate interface advantages. Players can pause game, scroll around map and give orders to units before unpausing and watching them execute. It will be a different game, but you can see how AI does against humans tactically and strategically.

kingkawn 7y ago

Yes, the point of the entire project was for the system to see if it can win. If we have reached the point where to even risk a loss requires implementing artificial restraints on the AI...well...

Enginerrrd 7y ago
They aren't really artificial restraints though, more like artificial advantages without them. The interface delay challenges are pretty relevant to making things fair in almost ANY competition. The physical part of the interface is an essential part of the game here. You aren't really testing the thing you really want to test otherwise. You could probably play tennis pretty well against Nadal if you made him wear goggles that gave him a quarter second delay in response time, but that's not really a fair test. All other things being equal, if you match up two chess players, and one can just say or think the position instead of having to physically move the piece before they hit the clock, that advantage will accumulate over time.
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  I wonder if implementing tactical pause would eliminate interface advantages. Players can pause game, scroll around map and give orders to units before unpausing and watching them execute. It will be a different game, but you can see how AI does against humans tactically and strategically.