Risk compared to Backgammon

Talk about all things related to Conquer Club

Moderators: Global Moderators, Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby AslanTheKing on Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:49 pm

premio53 wrote:I might add for those who aren't familiar with Backgammon that computers don't win every game but over a series of games (called matches) computers will almost always win even against the top human players. I don't see why the same thing couldn't happen on a given map on Conquer Club that is obviously more complicated than Doodle.


I win every game in backgammon against any computer, since i know what dice the computer will throw,
but this strategy is time-consuming , still works, i let him take as many stones as possible and close his home, and slowly i have all stones in my home,
and the computer loses, always, best regards, i think u have played backgammon many years but are not the best backgammon player,
best wishes aslan
I used to roll the daizz
Feel the fear in my enemy´s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:

Long live the Army Of Kings !


AOK

show: AOK Rocks
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class AslanTheKing
 
Posts: 1183
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:36 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Medals: 36
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (1)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:09 pm

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Secondly, now that min-max fails you have to derive a evaluation function for intermediate nodes. This seems to me EXTREMELY more difficult to do in 6 player risk than in chess. For instance, is it a good thing to have 30% of the armies with all of the 6 players still alive? Or does it mean they will now gang up on you ?
Is it a good thing to have a large bonus? Or does it's size assure that you'll lose it before your next turn.
How does the relative capability of the opponents factor into these kinds of decisions? What about diplomacy, should you be able to offer truces?


Well, sure, I'm not advocating a Risk AI for more than two players. But I also don't think these things are as problematic as you suggest, because to some extent you can empirically determine how to weight things instead of trying to figure that out computationally.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 3984
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby nippersean on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:39 pm

Well my thoughts - if a computer can beat Kasparov, then they have an outside chance of beating GLG.

Seriously, with enough resources a program would beat (be better) than everyone at this game. Without a doubt.

It is far more difficult to assess a chess position at the end of the algorithm than to calculate a 6 player KO. Always when the machine comes to the end of brute force it will have to assess who is better. This is way more difficicult in chess than it is in CC.

Difference is IBM unlikely to spend $1Bn+ on a CC program. I think it's rather silly to say CC / risk is more complex than chess.
Colonel nippersean
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 7:47 am
Medals: 66
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)
Tournament Achievement (18) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (15)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby premio53 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:40 pm

AslanTheKing wrote:
premio53 wrote:I might add for those who aren't familiar with Backgammon that computers don't win every game but over a series of games (called matches) computers will almost always win even against the top human players. I don't see why the same thing couldn't happen on a given map on Conquer Club that is obviously more complicated than Doodle.


I win every game in backgammon against any computer, since i know what dice the computer will throw,
but this strategy is time-consuming , still works, i let him take as many stones as possible and close his home, and slowly i have all stones in my home,
and the computer loses, always, best regards, i think u have played backgammon many years but are not the best backgammon player,
best wishes aslan

There are many weak programs out there. Download a copy of GnuBackgammon and even using manual dice it will wipe the floor with you.
Major premio53
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:09 pm
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby AslanTheKing on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:43 pm

premio53 wrote:
AslanTheKing wrote:
premio53 wrote:I might add for those who aren't familiar with Backgammon that computers don't win every game but over a series of games (called matches) computers will almost always win even against the top human players. I don't see why the same thing couldn't happen on a given map on Conquer Club that is obviously more complicated than Doodle.


I win every game in backgammon against any computer, since i know what dice the computer will throw,
but this strategy is time-consuming , still works, i let him take as many stones as possible and close his home, and slowly i have all stones in my home,
and the computer loses, always, best regards, i think u have played backgammon many years but are not the best backgammon player,
best wishes aslan

There are many weak programs out there. Download a copy of GnuBackgammon and even using manual dice it will wipe the floor with you.


i am looking forward to it, i let u know whats the weakside of gnu backgammon, if u have a download site it would be helpfull,
just to make sure im downloading the right game.
I used to roll the daizz
Feel the fear in my enemy´s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:

Long live the Army Of Kings !


AOK

show: AOK Rocks
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class AslanTheKing
 
Posts: 1183
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:36 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Medals: 36
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (1)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby premio53 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:47 pm

Just google GnuBackgammon. It is a free program. One of the strongest in the world.
Major premio53
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:09 pm
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby premio53 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:49 pm

The world Backgammon matches may go up to 21 or so using the cube but I doubt you will win even a 5 point match.
Major premio53
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:09 pm
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby AslanTheKing on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:55 pm

just watch this movie, to understand what i meant with my longturn strategy, its similar


http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3734033/gnu_backgammon/
I used to roll the daizz
Feel the fear in my enemy´s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:

Long live the Army Of Kings !


AOK

show: AOK Rocks
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class AslanTheKing
 
Posts: 1183
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:36 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Medals: 36
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (1)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Haggis_McMutton on Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:28 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, sure, I'm not advocating a Risk AI for more than two players. But I also don't think these things are as problematic as you suggest, because to some extent you can empirically determine how to weight things instead of trying to figure that out computationally.


Yeah, it's definitely a lot more tractable for 1 vs 1, though probably still not trivial.

I genuinely don't think anyone could make a world-class 6 player risk bot atm (well maybe if they sink a couple years of research into it). I base this mostly on the fact that there isn't a world class poker player out there for large-ish tables and poker is
a. probably simpler than risk
b. potentially worth a lot of money if someone figures this out.
Highest score: 3063; Highest position: 67;
Winner of {World War II tournament, -team 2010 Skilled Diversity, [FuN||Chewy]-[XII] USA};
8-3-7
User avatar
Major Haggis_McMutton
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:32 am
Medals: 28
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3) General Achievement (4)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Kaskavel on Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:37 pm

nippersean wrote:Well my thoughts - if a computer can beat Kasparov, then they have an outside chance of beating GLG.

Seriously, with enough resources a program would beat (be better) than everyone at this game. Without a doubt.

It is far more difficult to assess a chess position at the end of the algorithm than to calculate a 6 player KO. Always when the machine comes to the end of brute force it will have to assess who is better. This is way more difficicult in chess than it is in CC.

Difference is IBM unlikely to spend $1Bn+ on a CC program. I think it's rather silly to say CC / risk is more complex than chess.


It is not accurate to state that strongest computer defeats strongest human in chess at this point of history. In all the 3 last matchs played (the one Kasparov won 3.5-2.5, the one Kasparov lost 3.5-2.5 and the last one Kramnik lost 3.5-2.5), the human player managed to win at least one game. And the last match was 2.5-2.5, about to end in a tie with the last game being a completely drawn position when Kramnik made a remarkable mistake for his level (blundering checkmate in one move) which is made once or twice in a lifetime for such a strong player. Anyway, the point is that computers have a stable level of performance in all games, calculating millions of moves. Humans do not. A single mistake will lead to defeat against machines. But if on their best performance, strongest human chess players can still defeat computers, which means both not making mistakes AND playing superior strategy, this means computers have not bypassed humans yet. At least for a few more years, lol
Conqueror Kaskavel
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:08 pm
Medals: 48
Conqueror Achievement (1) Monthly Leader Gold (1) Monthly Leader Silver (1) Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Most Improved Silver (1)
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (6)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby premio53 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:16 am

Kaskavel wrote:
nippersean wrote:Well my thoughts - if a computer can beat Kasparov, then they have an outside chance of beating GLG.

Seriously, with enough resources a program would beat (be better) than everyone at this game. Without a doubt.

It is far more difficult to assess a chess position at the end of the algorithm than to calculate a 6 player KO. Always when the machine comes to the end of brute force it will have to assess who is better. This is way more difficicult in chess than it is in CC.

Difference is IBM unlikely to spend $1Bn+ on a CC program. I think it's rather silly to say CC / risk is more complex than chess.


It is not accurate to state that strongest computer defeats strongest human in chess at this point of history. In all the 3 last matchs played (the one Kasparov won 3.5-2.5, the one Kasparov lost 3.5-2.5 and the last one Kramnik lost 3.5-2.5), the human player managed to win at least one game. And the last match was 2.5-2.5, about to end in a tie with the last game being a completely drawn position when Kramnik made a remarkable mistake for his level (blundering checkmate in one move) which is made once or twice in a lifetime for such a strong player. Anyway, the point is that computers have a stable level of performance in all games, calculating millions of moves. Humans do not. A single mistake will lead to defeat against machines. But if on their best performance, strongest human chess players can still defeat computers, which means both not making mistakes AND playing superior strategy, this means computers have not bypassed humans yet. At least for a few more years, lol

The strongest human chess players are rated around 2800 elo. The top chess playing programs are now over 3200. The world chess champion would not stand a chane now. Chess Grandmasters no longer play against chess computers in matches because there is no point in it. They use computers to help prepare for matches against other humans.
Major premio53
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:09 pm
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Kaskavel on Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:33 am

premio53 wrote:
Kaskavel wrote:
nippersean wrote:Well my thoughts - if a computer can beat Kasparov, then they have an outside chance of beating GLG.

Seriously, with enough resources a program would beat (be better) than everyone at this game. Without a doubt.

It is far more difficult to assess a chess position at the end of the algorithm than to calculate a 6 player KO. Always when the machine comes to the end of brute force it will have to assess who is better. This is way more difficicult in chess than it is in CC.

Difference is IBM unlikely to spend $1Bn+ on a CC program. I think it's rather silly to say CC / risk is more complex than chess.


It is not accurate to state that strongest computer defeats strongest human in chess at this point of history. In all the 3 last matchs played (the one Kasparov won 3.5-2.5, the one Kasparov lost 3.5-2.5 and the last one Kramnik lost 3.5-2.5), the human player managed to win at least one game. And the last match was 2.5-2.5, about to end in a tie with the last game being a completely drawn position when Kramnik made a remarkable mistake for his level (blundering checkmate in one move) which is made once or twice in a lifetime for such a strong player. Anyway, the point is that computers have a stable level of performance in all games, calculating millions of moves. Humans do not. A single mistake will lead to defeat against machines. But if on their best performance, strongest human chess players can still defeat computers, which means both not making mistakes AND playing superior strategy, this means computers have not bypassed humans yet. At least for a few more years, lol

The strongest human chess players are rated around 2800 elo. The top chess playing programs are now over 3200. The world chess champion would not stand a chane now. Chess Grandmasters no longer play against chess computers in matches because there is no point in it. They use computers to help prepare for matches against other humans.


Probably, but that was not my point. My point is that although computers have a superior average performance, humans can still prevail in a game they show their top performance. Which in turn means that computers still make critical mistakes, at least in some kind of positions. Computers do not blunder, they have a stable performance at the rating you say, but humans' performance vary greatly, mainly because of the chance to find or miss critical tactics. And apparently they can still defeat computers in isolated games, although not in a match probably, when they perform their best. The next stage of computer evolution is the day we will have to accept that humans have 0% chance to defeat a computer in a single game and that computers do not make mistakes. At least not significant ones that could lead to a loss.
Computer preparation is part of every chesplayer agenda for 20 years. Doesnt mean much by itself. Examples like the Kramnik-Leko match on 2000 (I think), where one player prepares a position computer tells him he is winning and the opponent finds out, unprepared, over the board, thinking hard, that in fact the position is lost are still not uncommon. Opening novelties computers disapprove are still common. And the remarkable inability of computers to recognize drawing fortresses still leads to huge misevaluations.
Conqueror Kaskavel
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:08 pm
Medals: 48
Conqueror Achievement (1) Monthly Leader Gold (1) Monthly Leader Silver (1) Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Most Improved Silver (1)
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (6)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Kaskavel on Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:37 am

In contrast, the american verion of checkers has been strongly refuted. This means that top computers can never lose a game, only win or draw. Computers will never theoriticaly succeed in that (get data info in all positions that can arise through optimal play) and still need some years to practicaly succeed in that
Conqueror Kaskavel
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:08 pm
Medals: 48
Conqueror Achievement (1) Monthly Leader Gold (1) Monthly Leader Silver (1) Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Most Improved Silver (1)
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (6)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby AndyDufresne on Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:03 am

What we really need to develop, is simply a Mechanical Turk for RISK!

Image


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25354
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby premio53 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Kaskavel wrote:In contrast, the american verion of checkers has been strongly refuted. This means that top computers can never lose a game, only win or draw. Computers will never theoriticaly succeed in that (get data info in all positions that can arise through optimal play) and still need some years to practicaly succeed in that

I would say that for all practical purposes chess has been "solved" in the sense that I don't believe even the World Chess Champion would win one game out of a hundred against them today. Backgammon on the other hand, while computers are world class (GnuBackgammon is in the Top 5 of over 6000 rated Players on FIBS) the luck of the dice makes them beatable but by only the strongest human players. I would put Risk in the same category. While I believe a program could be developed that would conquer the vast majority of players, it would always be possible for a strong human player to compete with them.
Major premio53
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:09 pm
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Metsfanmax on Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:51 pm

premio53 wrote:
Kaskavel wrote:In contrast, the american verion of checkers has been strongly refuted. This means that top computers can never lose a game, only win or draw. Computers will never theoriticaly succeed in that (get data info in all positions that can arise through optimal play) and still need some years to practicaly succeed in that

I would say that for all practical purposes chess has been "solved" in the sense that I don't believe even the World Chess Champion would win one game out of a hundred against them today.


That's a strong claim; I wonder what the numbers are. Nevertheless, the top chess engines are now 500 FIDE points better than the top grandmasters. At that level of play, 500 point upsets are incredibly rare. It is possible for a 2300-level player to beat a 2800-level player, but even though that happens once in a (very long) while no one insists that the 2300 level player is comparable to the 2800 level player. I'm confident that computers are now better than humans for the same reason.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 3984
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby premio53 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:02 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
premio53 wrote:
Kaskavel wrote:In contrast, the american verion of checkers has been strongly refuted. This means that top computers can never lose a game, only win or draw. Computers will never theoriticaly succeed in that (get data info in all positions that can arise through optimal play) and still need some years to practicaly succeed in that

I would say that for all practical purposes chess has been "solved" in the sense that I don't believe even the World Chess Champion would win one game out of a hundred against them today.


That's a strong claim; I wonder what the numbers are. Nevertheless, the top chess engines are now 500 FIDE points better than the top grandmasters. At that level of play, 500 point upsets are incredibly rare. It is possible for a 2300-level player to beat a 2800-level player, but even though that happens once in a (very long) while no one insists that the 2300 level player is comparable to the 2800 level player. I'm confident that computers are now better than humans for the same reason.

I may be a little off. A 500 point spread would give a human maybe a 4% chance of winning a game.
Major premio53
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:09 pm
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Metsfanmax on Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:04 pm

premio53 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
premio53 wrote:
Kaskavel wrote:In contrast, the american verion of checkers has been strongly refuted. This means that top computers can never lose a game, only win or draw. Computers will never theoriticaly succeed in that (get data info in all positions that can arise through optimal play) and still need some years to practicaly succeed in that

I would say that for all practical purposes chess has been "solved" in the sense that I don't believe even the World Chess Champion would win one game out of a hundred against them today.


That's a strong claim; I wonder what the numbers are. Nevertheless, the top chess engines are now 500 FIDE points better than the top grandmasters. At that level of play, 500 point upsets are incredibly rare. It is possible for a 2300-level player to beat a 2800-level player, but even though that happens once in a (very long) while no one insists that the 2300 level player is comparable to the 2800 level player. I'm confident that computers are now better than humans for the same reason.

I may be a little off. A 500 point spread would give a human maybe a 4% chance of winning a game.


Do you know of a reference that has this analysis? I'd be curious to see how strongly this is a function of the actual ratings (after all, a 500 point spread between a 1400 and a 900 is not the same as a 500 point spread between a 2800 and a 2300, even if it should be in principle, because ratings are much less likely to be an accurate representation of a player's skill at the lower end).
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 3984
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby premio53 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:07 pm

Major premio53
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:09 pm
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Kaskavel on Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:58 pm

Yes, but computer's performance is stable, human's is not. A 2800 player occasionaly make performances at 2500 or 3100. The computer never makes a performance at 2900 or 3500.
Another parameter that complicates matters is that humans "cheat". They exploit the computer's small weaknesses. In the last match, Kramnik almost won a game by bringing up a position where he knew that computer would not understand that the best move was exchanging bishop for knight (Bxf3 in a catalan) because the horizon of knight's superiority was too big for a computer. They systematicaly try to bring up closed calm strategic positions and avoid great tactical calculations. The computer's ability to do that by taking orders to do the opposite is more complicated and difficult.
Conqueror Kaskavel
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:08 pm
Medals: 48
Conqueror Achievement (1) Monthly Leader Gold (1) Monthly Leader Silver (1) Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Most Improved Silver (1)
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (6)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby premio53 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:31 pm

Kaskavel wrote:Yes, but computer's performance is stable, human's is not. A 2800 player occasionaly make performances at 2500 or 3100. The computer never makes a performance at 2900 or 3500.
Another parameter that complicates matters is that humans "cheat". They exploit the computer's small weaknesses. In the last match, Kramnik almost won a game by bringing up a position where he knew that computer would not understand that the best move was exchanging bishop for knight (Bxf3 in a catalan) because the horizon of knight's superiority was too big for a computer. They systematicaly try to bring up closed calm strategic positions and avoid great tactical calculations. The computer's ability to do that by taking orders to do the opposite is more complicated and difficult.

It's actually the computer that cheats with a built in book but they are they are so strong now that it is just about impossible for any human to find those weaknesses at tournament time controls which is 40 moves in 2 hours. The only way possible I would think a human can still compete is through "correspendence chess" where there are no time limits. Even then I have my doubts. Like I said earlier, I believe programming a Risk program would be more similar to Backgammon than Chess with the dice. The computer would never dominate like it does in chess.
Major premio53
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:09 pm
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Kaskavel on Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:37 pm

Both are cheating in opening preparation, just in a different way. Do not underestimate the abilty of strong players to learn and recall thousand of moves in the opening. I do it, and I am not 2800. And do not underestimate his ability to scan through them through pure instict plus choosing the one that leads to a more "human" position. Computer's basic cheating is in the endgame, containing all positions with 6 or less pieces on board. As far as a position is left with 6 or less pieces, computer make no mistake. Ever. This is more important that opening databases because in opening, human can always understand and judge, in the endgame, computer can play the strongest moves that sometimes make no sence to the human mind.
Conqueror Kaskavel
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:08 pm
Medals: 48
Conqueror Achievement (1) Monthly Leader Gold (1) Monthly Leader Silver (1) Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Most Improved Silver (1)
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (6)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Kaskavel on Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:43 pm

And yes, of course. Computer will never dominate risk or backgammon. Or any other at least medium-related dice game. Playing the best move in those games does not lead necessary to a win, you can lose, even from an opponent who makes mistakes. Chess is a different category.
Conqueror Kaskavel
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:08 pm
Medals: 48
Conqueror Achievement (1) Monthly Leader Gold (1) Monthly Leader Silver (1) Monthly Leader Bronze (1) Most Improved Silver (1)
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (6)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Metsfanmax on Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:37 pm

Kaskavel wrote:And yes, of course. Computer will never dominate risk or backgammon. Or any other at least medium-related dice game. Playing the best move in those games does not lead necessary to a win, you can lose, even from an opponent who makes mistakes. Chess is a different category.


I disagree; you just need to have a different definition of "dominate." A computer AI may never win 75% of the time, but it will significantly more often than humans, which means it will dominate on average.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 3984
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 43
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (7) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (7)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Chariot of Fire on Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:19 pm

Kaskavel wrote:Both are cheating in opening preparation, just in a different way. Do not underestimate the abilty of strong players to learn and recall thousand of moves in the opening. I do it, and I am not 2800. And do not underestimate his ability to scan through them through pure instict plus choosing the one that leads to a more "human" position. Computer's basic cheating is in the endgame, containing all positions with 6 or less pieces on board. As far as a position is left with 6 or less pieces, computer make no mistake. Ever. This is more important that opening databases because in opening, human can always understand and judge, in the endgame, computer can play the strongest moves that sometimes make no sence to the human mind.


Very good point
User avatar
General Chariot of Fire
 
Posts: 3116
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:13 am
Location: Hong Kong
Medals: 89
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (21) General Achievement (9) Clan Achievement (25)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GlenCoco

Login