Author: Tim Foden
Date: 09:12:05 07/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2003 at 08:34:10, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On July 26, 2003 at 18:23:31, Graham Laight wrote: > >>Finally, I got around to doing what I've been promising to do for a long time. >> >>Since nearly everyone who plays my matching pennies game chooses to have 49 >>goes, I've tuned the pattern recogniction algorithm to work best at this level. >>You should now find it noticeably harder to beat than it was before. >> >>http://mysite.freeserve.com/grahamlaight/jscript/GuessWhichHand.htm >> >>Have fun - and don't forget to post your game records here, please! >> >>Take care, >>-g > >Such programs try to take advantage of non-random play of the opponent. In order >to do so, it must also play in a non-random way. This leaves it vulnerable to a >sophisticated opponent. The more aggressive the program is in taking advantage >of non-random play, the more non-random its own play must be and the more >vulnerable it is. > >For example, someone posted a link on a usenet group to precisely the same game >you tackle. The programmer even dressed it up a bit with a high scores list. >This had the desired effect of encouraging participation. > >Unfortunately, the program was very agressive to the point of being completely >deterministic. A number of jokers realized this and worked out the precise >sequence required to win with a nearly perfect score! I was one of them, but not >as patient as some of the others at working out a really long sequence that won >consistently. > >Interestingly, despite this going on, there were enough unsophisticated players >to give the program a very comfortable plus score overall. It seems the >sophisticated players were too few in number to really hurt it. Kind of the same >situation as in Las Vegas and the BlackJack card counters. > >I did not do a lot of testing, but I think your program does not seem to be very >aggressive. It can't be taken advantage of as ruthlessly as the aforementioned >program, but I'm not sure if this is really the best way. Maybe the best way is >to rely on the much greater abundance of unsophisticated players. > >It would be interesting to compare both approaches on a large pool of players. >It may be best to be aggressive, but not so aggressive that it becomes easy to >join the sophisticated group of players. Ruthlessness should require hard work! Maybe it would be interesting to have a program that is very aggressive, but detects when this is failing (e.g. say, score worse than 3/10), and then randomly changes to a less aggressive algorithm (of which it may have more than 1). Cheers, Tim.
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.