4 ms·

Is there any reason to look at the target instead of just going for binary search? The least significant digit is kinda meaningless to guess without fixing the

Is there any reason to look at the target instead of just going for binary search? The least significant digit is kinda meaningless to guess without fixing the more significant one.

jagthebeetle 3y ago
While I agree the LSD is somewhat meaningless, I personally find it fun to test my color matching/mixing. Binary search circumvents that (at least for the most significant digit); though I agree it really only applies for the first and maybe second guess. For instance, my initial guess was off by (+1,-1,-1,+3,-1-2) and my first impulse was to look at the target and see that I had too much red and not enough green.
masto 3y ago
To have fun, perhaps?
- IshKebab 3y ago
  Games that can be trivially solved are generally not fun. Nobody* plays noughts and crosses for fun once they have figured out the solution. *standard HN disclaimer
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    It's non-trivial if you apply a computer science algorithm, true. Scrabble's trivial if you have a dictionary, chess is trivial if you have Stockfish installed...checkers...do they have a Stockfish? More directly: it's actually pretty fun to guess these straight up. disclaimer: I have a strong bias towards having fun with color stuff - c.f. https://material.io/blog/science-of-color-design https://material.io/blog/science-of-color-design. RGB is neigh-meaningless, true. Here, I get to exercise my intuition I should balance between red and blue based on warmth via hue of the color. Then, jack up G to match the lower of the two if its a light color / has high tone.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      Scrabble is far from trivial with a dictionary :)
      - bombcar 3y ago
        Exactly why we used to play with various levels - everyone could refer to the two letter word sheet with Q without U words also, and the players given a handicap could use the dictionary, though limited to 30 seconds on their turn.
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        Ehhh no not what I meant. Scrabble is far from trivial even if you have a solver that shows all possible word combinations with your hand.
        refulgentis 3y ago
        Dude come on lol
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        High level scrabble play isn’t a greedy algo to get the most points every turn with the best words. Positioning around bonuses matters more.
    - IshKebab 3y ago
      > It's non-trivial if you apply a computer science algorithm, true Noughts and crosses? It's non-trivial if you're 8. No fancy algorithms needed. The other examples you mentioned can't be solved by an 8 year old in their heads. > do they have a Stockfish? No, which is why chess is still fun. You don't need a computer or even a pen and paper to solve noughts and crosses, or this.
  - temporarara 3y ago
    When I was younger we played way too much noughts and crosses with "infinite" board trying to get five in a row and it never stopped being fun. The "standard" 3x3 board was just 100% unfun and pointless to us even though we had no idea back then that there is a "solution".
    - tianshuo 3y ago
      That game is gomoku, commonly played on 15x15, and is a strong first-player win, where the game is solved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gomoku https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gomoku
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
justinl33 3y ago
You’re right. I see the target colour as more of a nice visualisation of my quantitative working

Is there any reason to look at the target instead of just going for binary search? The least significant digit is kinda meaningless to guess without fixing the more significant one.

jagthebeetle 3y ago

While I agree the LSD is somewhat meaningless, I personally find it fun to test my color matching/mixing. Binary search circumvents that (at least for the most significant digit); though I agree it really only applies for the first and maybe second guess. For instance, my initial guess was off by (+1,-1,-1,+3,-1-2) and my first impulse was to look at the target and see that I had too much red and not enough green.

masto 3y ago

To have fun, perhaps?

IshKebab 3y ago
Games that can be trivially solved are generally not fun. Nobody* plays noughts and crosses for fun once they have figured out the solution. *standard HN disclaimer
- refulgentis 3y ago
  It's non-trivial if you apply a computer science algorithm, true. Scrabble's trivial if you have a dictionary, chess is trivial if you have Stockfish installed...checkers...do they have a Stockfish? More directly: it's actually pretty fun to guess these straight up. disclaimer: I have a strong bias towards having fun with color stuff - c.f. https://material.io/blog/science-of-color-design https://material.io/blog/science-of-color-design. RGB is neigh-meaningless, true. Here, I get to exercise my intuition I should balance between red and blue based on warmth via hue of the color. Then, jack up G to match the lower of the two if its a light color / has high tone.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Scrabble is far from trivial with a dictionary :)
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Exactly why we used to play with various levels - everyone could refer to the two letter word sheet with Q without U words also, and the players given a handicap could use the dictionary, though limited to 30 seconds on their turn.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        Ehhh no not what I meant. Scrabble is far from trivial even if you have a solver that shows all possible word combinations with your hand.
        refulgentis 3y ago
        Dude come on lol
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        High level scrabble play isn’t a greedy algo to get the most points every turn with the best words. Positioning around bonuses matters more.
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    > It's non-trivial if you apply a computer science algorithm, true Noughts and crosses? It's non-trivial if you're 8. No fancy algorithms needed. The other examples you mentioned can't be solved by an 8 year old in their heads. > do they have a Stockfish? No, which is why chess is still fun. You don't need a computer or even a pen and paper to solve noughts and crosses, or this.
- temporarara 3y ago
  When I was younger we played way too much noughts and crosses with "infinite" board trying to get five in a row and it never stopped being fun. The "standard" 3x3 board was just 100% unfun and pointless to us even though we had no idea back then that there is a "solution".
  - tianshuo 3y ago
    That game is gomoku, commonly played on 15x15, and is a strong first-player win, where the game is solved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gomoku https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/gomoku
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

justinl33 3y ago

You’re right. I see the target colour as more of a nice visualisation of my quantitative working