7 ms·

Why would it render human games moot? Why would a software participate in a championship? The draw percentage in checkers/draught and in chess are roughly simi

by axlee 3y ago

Why would it render human games moot? Why would a software participate in a championship? The draw percentage in checkers/draught and in chess are roughly similar, (anywhere between 50% and 60% at high-level play), despite checkers being solved and chess not.

Diggsey 3y ago
Now that Othello is solved, there exist a set of rules a player can follow to guarantee a win or draw every game. It's possible (if unlikely) that a computer could sufficiently compress those rules to be memorizable (and then applicable) by a human.
- axlee 3y ago
  Checkers have been solved 16 years ago and still see competition. A game being solved is not exactly the same as "apply this memorizable algorithm and you'll win", especially if the solution implies scanning 10^n positions for each move.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    I recall hearing that competition checkers has a randomization element at the start, to keep it more interesting. I believe checkers is strongly solved anyway, but it at least keeps people from memorizing all of the major lines.
  - forty 3y ago
    In case you wondering like me, checkers here means American checkers, played on a smaller 8x8 board. International checkers played on 10x10 board is a much bigger space to explore of course.
    - Detrytus 3y ago
      Does the board size matter here? Wouldn't the strategy from 8x8 board somehow generalize to bigger boards? The one issue that I can possibly see is even vs odd board sizes, e.g. play on 9x9 board can be a bit different than 8x8 or 10x10.
      - forty 3y ago
        Solve a 2x2 Rubik's cube and see if that helps solving a 4x4 ^^ From the computer point of view, it's more possible states to explore, so I think it makes things much harder
        Detrytus 3y ago
        I meant: after you've analyzed the whole solution space for a smaller board, can't you come up with some heuristics, which will be applicable regardless of the board size? Checkers is a very simple game, all pieces are identical, unlike chess.
  - RetroTechie 3y ago
    That would be a fun way to define computer opponent: introduce an arbitrary amount of allowed compute power. Say, allowing a purpose designed device, but limited to 1W of power consumption. Or some fixed energy budget (J) per move. Too strong? Take it down to 0.1W, 10mW or whatever. That would degrade brute forcing as a viable approach, and bring it back to smart algorithms, clever ways to reduce the search space, etc.
kelsey9876543 3y ago
They are moot because the solution is known. When a human makes a mistake the intrigue is discovering the fix to become better. In solo copetition solved games are highly fascinating because the person is racing the TAS or the solved route. In human versus human games, we can simply look up what the human did wrong. There is no cognitive challenge in answer lookup. Its just oh, he sucks he missed the move. Since its two humans competing it becomes "who sucks less" but its two losers that both suck competing. Thats the problem with competitive play of solved games, it must be solo competition against the solution.
- addaon 3y ago
  > Since its two humans competing it becomes "who sucks less" but its two losers that both suck competing. Yeah, this is my problem with bowling and golf. If you're a professional bowler, literally your only job is to knock down the pins. Why do anything else? If you miss one, you're bad at your job. Ditto with golf -- the hole is right there, just get the ball in it! (Honestly not sure how sarcastic vs sincere I am in this comment.)
  - uxp8u61q 3y ago
    Foot races are also solved - these losers should just get a car!
    - kelsey9876543 3y ago
      Cars are not allowed in the rules of the game "foot race", therefore your solution is not valid and therefore your argument has no evidence to support your claim.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        You used this word, evidence. I don't think it means what you think it means. Parent made an argument by analogy, no evidence needs to enter the picture. At best you can say his analogy is flawed. It's not even flawed, anyway. If cars not being allowed is supposed to refute the analogy, then an obvious answer would be that Othello playing programs could also banned in Othello competitions (given that the solution can't just be internalized by a human player).
mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
And honestly I think the draw percentage in chess is influenced just as much by sociological processes as it is by game theoretic concerns. The very top chess players are extremely risk averse. Chess is way too complex for humans to ever be able to play perfectly in sufficiently complex positions, honestly. The top players today obsessively avoid positions like that unless they can find a forced drawing line as a backup. In other words, not losing is heavily prioritised over winning in top chess, currently. There are many possible ways to change this. My favourite is to make a win worth 3 points, and a draw 1 point. Both in tournament scoring and rating calculation. I think this would incentivise more aggressive play, and disincentivise the constant slog of the same 15 top players playing mostly draws against eachother, and barely playing in more open tournaments with a bigger rating interval.
- mkesper 3y ago
  German soccer league followed the English and Italian league in 1994 with a three points rule. It seems to favor the better teams (with more expensive players) even more, stabilizing the championship. https://www.fiaa.at/theories/die-3-punkte-regel-und-ihre-profiteure/ https://www.fiaa.at/theories/die-3-punkte-regel-und-ihre-pro...
- bluGill 3y ago
  Great chess players often pull out a draw from what looks like an obviously lost position. Mostly great players start playing for a win, but somewhere in the middle they realize winning is hopeless and switch to looking for a draw.
- axlee 3y ago
  > In other words, not losing is heavily prioritised over winning in top chess, currently. It's more that once you are in a losing position, winning is extremely difficult, and a draw is often the best thing you can achieve. From there on, the losing side cares about not losing (because winning is almost impossible), but the winning side stills tries to win. Great chess players are the ones who can turn a losing position into a draw, or prevent draws from a winning position.
  - 3y ago

by axlee 3y ago

Diggsey 3y ago

Now that Othello is solved, there exist a set of rules a player can follow to guarantee a win or draw every game. It's possible (if unlikely) that a computer could sufficiently compress those rules to be memorizable (and then applicable) by a human.

axlee 3y ago
Checkers have been solved 16 years ago and still see competition. A game being solved is not exactly the same as "apply this memorizable algorithm and you'll win", especially if the solution implies scanning 10^n positions for each move.
- jfengel 3y ago
  I recall hearing that competition checkers has a randomization element at the start, to keep it more interesting. I believe checkers is strongly solved anyway, but it at least keeps people from memorizing all of the major lines.
- forty 3y ago
  In case you wondering like me, checkers here means American checkers, played on a smaller 8x8 board. International checkers played on 10x10 board is a much bigger space to explore of course.
  - Detrytus 3y ago
    Does the board size matter here? Wouldn't the strategy from 8x8 board somehow generalize to bigger boards? The one issue that I can possibly see is even vs odd board sizes, e.g. play on 9x9 board can be a bit different than 8x8 or 10x10.
    - forty 3y ago
      Solve a 2x2 Rubik's cube and see if that helps solving a 4x4 ^^ From the computer point of view, it's more possible states to explore, so I think it makes things much harder
      - Detrytus 3y ago
        I meant: after you've analyzed the whole solution space for a smaller board, can't you come up with some heuristics, which will be applicable regardless of the board size? Checkers is a very simple game, all pieces are identical, unlike chess.
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  That would be a fun way to define computer opponent: introduce an arbitrary amount of allowed compute power. Say, allowing a purpose designed device, but limited to 1W of power consumption. Or some fixed energy budget (J) per move. Too strong? Take it down to 0.1W, 10mW or whatever. That would degrade brute forcing as a viable approach, and bring it back to smart algorithms, clever ways to reduce the search space, etc.

kelsey9876543 3y ago

They are moot because the solution is known. When a human makes a mistake the intrigue is discovering the fix to become better. In solo copetition solved games are highly fascinating because the person is racing the TAS or the solved route. In human versus human games, we can simply look up what the human did wrong. There is no cognitive challenge in answer lookup. Its just oh, he sucks he missed the move. Since its two humans competing it becomes "who sucks less" but its two losers that both suck competing. Thats the problem with competitive play of solved games, it must be solo competition against the solution.

addaon 3y ago
> Since its two humans competing it becomes "who sucks less" but its two losers that both suck competing. Yeah, this is my problem with bowling and golf. If you're a professional bowler, literally your only job is to knock down the pins. Why do anything else? If you miss one, you're bad at your job. Ditto with golf -- the hole is right there, just get the ball in it! (Honestly not sure how sarcastic vs sincere I am in this comment.)
- uxp8u61q 3y ago
  Foot races are also solved - these losers should just get a car!
  - kelsey9876543 3y ago
    Cars are not allowed in the rules of the game "foot race", therefore your solution is not valid and therefore your argument has no evidence to support your claim.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      You used this word, evidence. I don't think it means what you think it means. Parent made an argument by analogy, no evidence needs to enter the picture. At best you can say his analogy is flawed. It's not even flawed, anyway. If cars not being allowed is supposed to refute the analogy, then an obvious answer would be that Othello playing programs could also banned in Othello competitions (given that the solution can't just be internalized by a human player).

mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago

And honestly I think the draw percentage in chess is influenced just as much by sociological processes as it is by game theoretic concerns. The very top chess players are extremely risk averse. Chess is way too complex for humans to ever be able to play perfectly in sufficiently complex positions, honestly. The top players today obsessively avoid positions like that unless they can find a forced drawing line as a backup. In other words, not losing is heavily prioritised over winning in top chess, currently. There are many possible ways to change this. My favourite is to make a win worth 3 points, and a draw 1 point. Both in tournament scoring and rating calculation. I think this would incentivise more aggressive play, and disincentivise the constant slog of the same 15 top players playing mostly draws against eachother, and barely playing in more open tournaments with a bigger rating interval.

mkesper 3y ago
German soccer league followed the English and Italian league in 1994 with a three points rule. It seems to favor the better teams (with more expensive players) even more, stabilizing the championship. https://www.fiaa.at/theories/die-3-punkte-regel-und-ihre-profiteure/ https://www.fiaa.at/theories/die-3-punkte-regel-und-ihre-pro...
bluGill 3y ago
Great chess players often pull out a draw from what looks like an obviously lost position. Mostly great players start playing for a win, but somewhere in the middle they realize winning is hopeless and switch to looking for a draw.
axlee 3y ago
> In other words, not losing is heavily prioritised over winning in top chess, currently. It's more that once you are in a losing position, winning is extremely difficult, and a draw is often the best thing you can achieve. From there on, the losing side cares about not losing (because winning is almost impossible), but the winning side stills tries to win. Great chess players are the ones who can turn a losing position into a draw, or prevent draws from a winning position.
- 3y ago