Author: Robert Henry Durrett
Date: 06:07:39 06/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 2002 at 07:30:47, Tony Werten wrote: >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. I knew that. I even purchased Qubic once. I don't know why I said "never saw this put on a computer." Maybe I was thinking about the way we played it. I played this game with my friend more than 45 years ago! The game was not yet "solved" at that time. An important point: Although the game has been "solved," that doesn't make the game any the less challenging to humans. Chess is the same way. If, someday, Chess is "solved," the game will not suddenly lose it's popularity. How is a human going to memorize the "solution"? 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.