4 ms·

Huh. If someone had asked me whether Stratego is even trying to be any amount of war simulation, even a bad one, I’d have said “no”. I’d class it as the kind of

Huh. If someone had asked me whether Stratego is even trying to be any amount of war simulation, even a bad one, I’d have said “no”. I’d class it as the kind of game where the flavor is just there to look at, and maybe as a mnemonic tool, and has little meaningful connection to the mechanics. Basically chess without all the information being public.

Der_Einzige 3y ago
Because of the limited information, I claim that Stratego would be much harder for machines to be good at. Still likely in the realm of "computer will destroy humans" but more like a game which would lend itself to rely less on alpha-beta pruning and monte-carlo tree search and the like (which are still used heavily even in NN evaluation using engines). Also means opening books are useless and end-game tablebases far larger. Humans may also find it easier to find "pathological" cases for AI Stratego models. Too bad no one in the AI community really cares about Stratego so not many engines exist. I claim adding the changes and similar changes to what I describe in my OP creates a "rougelikeification" of the game, starting to add elements of emergence and enough complexity to keep me entertained even in a world where increasingly large amounts of variations of all things become available to us via AI. I imagine that Stratego would be difficult to "solve" in a way that chess simply isn't. Of course, simply scaling up the size of the chess board and the number of pieces would have the same impact in chess...