3 ms·
Great article. I played Stratego a lot as a kid and it always felt simpler than chess, go , or poker so it’s surprising it’s a much bigger game tree unless you
by waprin 4y ago
Great article. I played Stratego a lot as a kid and it always felt simpler than chess, go , or poker so it’s surprising it’s a much bigger game tree unless you stop and think.
I’m curious about the comparisons to poker. I know the hot algorithm in poker solvers is counter factual regret minimization. The article indicates that the feedback cycle is too long for those algorithms to work but I’d be curious to learn more about the relationship from CFR to what’s tried here, if any.
- _HMCB_ 4y agoI played it too. My goodness what a blast from the past. To be honest, none of my friends liked to play. I mostly played by myself it seems. LOL.
- TecoAndJix 4y agoI had star wars stratego that i played where they reversed the number values. It was characters from the OG trilogy and episode 1. takes me back! $80 on amazon for that version :(
- gcanyon 4y agoThe "complexity" of a game is not very well measured by game-tree size alone. Wikipedia lists multiple factors on the game complexity page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity#Measures_of_game_complexity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_complexity#Measures_of_ga...
- fnbr 4y agoIt’s very hard to use CFR in Stratego because you can’t represent the hidden information in memory. In poker, the hidden information is a 52C2 vector, so you can easily pass it around. Not so in Stratego, so you have to do something else. RNAD has similar theoretical foundations though.