Author: Tony Werten
Date: 04:30:47 06/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 2002 at 20:43:24, Robert Henry Durrett wrote: >On June 07, 2002 at 19:21:52, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On June 07, 2002 at 15:39:53, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On June 07, 2002 at 15:37:59, Russell Reagan wrote: >>> >>>>the only thing making >>>>it hard is it's incredibly high branching factor when trying to analyze >>>>variations. >>> >>>'Ahem' >> >>If chess were played on a 19x19 board with 38 pieces on each side, it would be >>extremely more complex as well. The game of go is on a complexity level of >>tic-tac-toe. If tic-tac-toe were played on a 19x19 board it would be complex >>too. The only thing making go a more difficult game to succeed at is the larger >>size of it's board. So when I hear go players say that their game is so much >>harder, it irritates me because it is not. Chess played on a 19x19 board would >>be just as complex, if not more complex, than go. >> >>Do you think tic-tac-toe is innately more complex or more difficult than chess? >>Of course it's not. It's drastically simpler. However, if it were played on a >>1000x1000 board then all of the sudden it would be exponentially more complex >>than chess, go, or any other game. The game itself is not complex however. >> >>Russell > >Most people [carbon-based] on this bulletin board have probably played 4x4x4 tic >tac toe at some time or another. A friend and I played "millions" of these >games daily during our one hour break in a USA High School [before University]. > >We drew four figures on the blackboard. Each figure was like a normal tic tac >toe figure except there were three vertical lines and three horizontal lines in >each figure. The four figures were lined up in a vertical column. > >I am sure virtually everybody here knows exactly what I'm talking about. > >After playing many games, we developed theories and strategies much as one does >in Chess. We learned how to compete for the initiative, for example. This >became a very intense battle [for the intitiative]. > >I enjoyed this as much as chess. It became a strategy game after we had becomed >skilled at the tactics. There was also an anology to positional chess. > >In the last year, we started playing "blindfold," looking at the figure but not >entering any x's and 0's. We did reasonably well at that, more or less. It WAS >challenging! But we learned "intense concentration" from that game. We simply >didn't hear the noises around us. [Not even the teacher saying it was time for >the next class.] > >This was a lot of fun. > >Chess is more complex, but we soon learned that this game was not trivial, once >we knew what we were doing. It's easy to enter your x's and 0's but something >else entirely to why. > >Never saw this put on a computer. Wouldn't recommend it. A waste of time. The game is called Qubic and has been solved more than 10 years ago. Tony > >Bob D.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.