4 ms·

Is there an inaccuracy for https://www.craig-wood.com/nick/oxo2d/b2/ https://www.craig-wood.com/nick/oxo2d/b2/ ? I believe the optimal response to: X . .

Is there an inaccuracy for https://www.craig-wood.com/nick/oxo2d/b2/ https://www.craig-wood.com/nick/oxo2d/b2/ ? I believe the optimal response to: X . . . O . . . . Should be X . . . O . . . X Which offers a reasonable opportunity for "O" to mess up by choosing a corner. But instead your script plays X X . . O . . . . Which guides the human player to reflexively counter accurately without thinking.

mizzao 3y ago
The game is playing a minimax strategy, which means if you go first it will at least draw, and if it goes first it will never lose.
- reaperman 3y ago
  Minimax seems logical on its face... but it costs nothing to slightly increase % chance of a win. And wins have some value over draws.
naniwaduni 3y ago
The immediate threat offers the opponent 5/6 losing moves, whereas yours offers only 2/6 losing moves. The rationale is quite similar to your choice of the initial corner move rather than center: there are 7/8 losing responses to turn 1 corner, and only 4/8 losing responses to turn 1 center. But you'll probably get more humans to pick a losing side response to center than pick a losing non-center response to corner.
- reaperman 3y ago
  > The immediate threat offers the opponent 5/6 losing moves, whereas yours offers only 2/6 losing moves. This would be relevant if humans made their choice with a significant amount of randomness. But I argue that in this specific situation, very nearly every human will play to block the obvious threat. I believe humans will be more likely to pick one of the two losing moves in the slightly more abstract/delayed threat scenario, than they would be to pick one of the 5 losing moves in the immediate threat scenario.
  - naniwaduni 3y ago
    Yes, I believe this too. I also believe humans are more likely to pick one of the 4/8 losing moves if you open center than one of the 7/8 losing moves if you open corner, though.
    - reaperman 3y ago
      Ah, this clarifies your other point above. Thank you!

mizzao 3y ago

The game is playing a minimax strategy, which means if you go first it will at least draw, and if it goes first it will never lose.

reaperman 3y ago
Minimax seems logical on its face... but it costs nothing to slightly increase % chance of a win. And wins have some value over draws.

naniwaduni 3y ago

The immediate threat offers the opponent 5/6 losing moves, whereas yours offers only 2/6 losing moves. The rationale is quite similar to your choice of the initial corner move rather than center: there are 7/8 losing responses to turn 1 corner, and only 4/8 losing responses to turn 1 center. But you'll probably get more humans to pick a losing side response to center than pick a losing non-center response to corner.

reaperman 3y ago
> The immediate threat offers the opponent 5/6 losing moves, whereas yours offers only 2/6 losing moves. This would be relevant if humans made their choice with a significant amount of randomness. But I argue that in this specific situation, very nearly every human will play to block the obvious threat. I believe humans will be more likely to pick one of the two losing moves in the slightly more abstract/delayed threat scenario, than they would be to pick one of the 5 losing moves in the immediate threat scenario.
- naniwaduni 3y ago
  Yes, I believe this too. I also believe humans are more likely to pick one of the 4/8 losing moves if you open center than one of the 7/8 losing moves if you open corner, though.
  - reaperman 3y ago
    Ah, this clarifies your other point above. Thank you!