3 ms·

I don't think that's a very convincing argument, in game theory you are not supposed to be helping your opponent out, except in some very specific scenarios tha

by Vecr 4y ago

I don't think that's a very convincing argument, in game theory you are not supposed to be helping your opponent out, except in some very specific scenarios that usually involve zero and/or one probabilities or infinities, so they don't apply to real life. Using minimax in a non-infinite iterated game like chess, with the standard goal function, I don't think it ever happens. Winning is the optimal strategy every single time. You don't owe correct and useful information to your opponent, in fact it is against the goal function. All iterated games in the real world have a first game as well.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
AlbertCory 4y ago
> All iterated games in the real world have a first game as well not really. Any opponent you face in a serious tournament has played before. If he's played in major matches, you have his games to study, so he's not "helping" you. Experiment: A plays B, in two different scenarios, one where A knows all of B's prior games, and the other where he doesn't even know it's B. in which scenario would A do better?
- Vecr 4y ago
  Right, but if not playing before or playing differently before increases the chance of victory, that's a good thing in the utility function. For example, even in a non-infinitely iterated true prisoner's dilemma, defecting is the right move. In an infinitely iterated one it's probably not, but that requires pretty sophisticated decision theory, including acausal or backwards looking analysis. In a standard forward looking minimax, when applied to chess, you can use an arbitrarily sophisticated evaluation function, and that function can model the psychological state of the opponent, potentially causing the opponent to have no prior knowledge of your games, or changing your play style or using surprising moves. In addition, I don't think any external force would prevent this action, as top players in the real world have used similar strategies and were able to continue playing more games. If Kasparov thinks you are required to waste your first game on a weak player, he is mistaken.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    You know, this reminds me of one of the few Economist Jokes I know, where the economist hears of a previously-unknown real world phenomenon: "That's interesting. It works in practice, but will it work in theory?" the other one, since you wondered, is: Two economists are walking on the sidewalk and spot a $100 bill. One bends down to pick it up, but the other stops him and says, "That can't be a $100 bill. If it were, someone would have picked it up already."
    - Vecr 4y ago
      I'm a $100 bill picker-upper. The efficient market hypothesis is false.
      - Vecr 4y ago
        Actually, to be a bit more clear, let's say you are well compensated and a $100 bill is worth 99 USD to pick up excluding outside factors. You would calculate in USD 99 - (expected loss from ambush|picked up + expected loss from arrest|picked up + expected loss from police harassment|picked up + expected loss from mob|picked up + expected loss from lawsuit|picked up + expected loss from stress|picked up + ...). I guess at that point the stress from doing the situational analysis and calculation is sunk, so you should pick up the bill if the previous calculation gives a dollar value above 0. I personally would just quickly put on gloves and check for possible ambush scenarios, and then just pick it up. If you do the full calculation at the time, someone else might get it before you. If you do most of it ahead of time, you can commit to the likely optimal decision. You need to calculate the value of your time and the value of your life in US dollars, taking into account that inflation may not work how you intuitively think it does.
        AlbertCory 4y ago
        way to ruin a joke.
ZephyrBlu 4y ago
> All iterated games in the real world have a first game as well They effectively don't, because the way things work in the real world is that you become known to the competitive scene long before you reach a top level tournament and people will have definitely played against you in some capacity. If you could somehow become a top pro without interacting with the rest of the scene, then you would most definitely have a massive advantage against other top pros for a little while before they figure out your tendencies. This is based on my experience and knowledge of real-time games like SC2 and Dota, so it may not be as applicable to Chess since the action space is considerably smaller and I don't know if knowledge of opponent tendencies is as important (I assume it is though). I wouldn't necessarily agree all of this means it wasn't a game of perfect information, but the first match of an iterated game in the real world is almost always either inconsequential or you have access to information from a secondary source.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Thanks, my joke about "will it work in theory?" is kinda on point here: I don't think it's any slam at game theory to say that it doesn't represent the real world perfectly. It's an approximation.

by Vecr 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

AlbertCory 4y ago

> All iterated games in the real world have a first game as well not really. Any opponent you face in a serious tournament has played before. If he's played in major matches, you have his games to study, so he's not "helping" you. Experiment: A plays B, in two different scenarios, one where A knows all of B's prior games, and the other where he doesn't even know it's B. in which scenario would A do better?

Vecr 4y ago
Right, but if not playing before or playing differently before increases the chance of victory, that's a good thing in the utility function. For example, even in a non-infinitely iterated true prisoner's dilemma, defecting is the right move. In an infinitely iterated one it's probably not, but that requires pretty sophisticated decision theory, including acausal or backwards looking analysis. In a standard forward looking minimax, when applied to chess, you can use an arbitrarily sophisticated evaluation function, and that function can model the psychological state of the opponent, potentially causing the opponent to have no prior knowledge of your games, or changing your play style or using surprising moves. In addition, I don't think any external force would prevent this action, as top players in the real world have used similar strategies and were able to continue playing more games. If Kasparov thinks you are required to waste your first game on a weak player, he is mistaken.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  You know, this reminds me of one of the few Economist Jokes I know, where the economist hears of a previously-unknown real world phenomenon: "That's interesting. It works in practice, but will it work in theory?" the other one, since you wondered, is: Two economists are walking on the sidewalk and spot a $100 bill. One bends down to pick it up, but the other stops him and says, "That can't be a $100 bill. If it were, someone would have picked it up already."
  - Vecr 4y ago
    I'm a $100 bill picker-upper. The efficient market hypothesis is false.
    - Vecr 4y ago
      Actually, to be a bit more clear, let's say you are well compensated and a $100 bill is worth 99 USD to pick up excluding outside factors. You would calculate in USD 99 - (expected loss from ambush|picked up + expected loss from arrest|picked up + expected loss from police harassment|picked up + expected loss from mob|picked up + expected loss from lawsuit|picked up + expected loss from stress|picked up + ...). I guess at that point the stress from doing the situational analysis and calculation is sunk, so you should pick up the bill if the previous calculation gives a dollar value above 0. I personally would just quickly put on gloves and check for possible ambush scenarios, and then just pick it up. If you do the full calculation at the time, someone else might get it before you. If you do most of it ahead of time, you can commit to the likely optimal decision. You need to calculate the value of your time and the value of your life in US dollars, taking into account that inflation may not work how you intuitively think it does.
      - AlbertCory 4y ago
        way to ruin a joke.

ZephyrBlu 4y ago

> All iterated games in the real world have a first game as well They effectively don't, because the way things work in the real world is that you become known to the competitive scene long before you reach a top level tournament and people will have definitely played against you in some capacity. If you could somehow become a top pro without interacting with the rest of the scene, then you would most definitely have a massive advantage against other top pros for a little while before they figure out your tendencies. This is based on my experience and knowledge of real-time games like SC2 and Dota, so it may not be as applicable to Chess since the action space is considerably smaller and I don't know if knowledge of opponent tendencies is as important (I assume it is though). I wouldn't necessarily agree all of this means it wasn't a game of perfect information, but the first match of an iterated game in the real world is almost always either inconsequential or you have access to information from a secondary source.

AlbertCory 4y ago
Thanks, my joke about "will it work in theory?" is kinda on point here: I don't think it's any slam at game theory to say that it doesn't represent the real world perfectly. It's an approximation.