[Computer-go] human complexity measure of games
Stefan.Kaitschick at Hamburg.de
Tue Oct 26 14:54:46 PDT 2010
Good point. Just because you have a game on perfect information doesn't
mean that there is no luck factor.
Only a perfect player in a perfect information game has no need for luck.
And even that doesn't hold true if he's giving a handicap, unless he
also has a perfect understanding of his opponent.
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.64.1010261405230.2484 at andromeda.ociw.edu>,
> Christoph Birk <birk at obs.carnegiescience.edu> writes
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, steve uurtamo wrote:
>>>> Wouldn't by that definition Poker become a very simple game?
>>>> Due to the large "luck factor" even a skilled player wins
>>>> only by a relatively small margin against a weaker player.
>>>> Even a pro can loose on a bad day against a beginner. This
>>>> is not possible in a perfect information game like chess
>>>> or go.
>>> actually, it is possible in a perfect information game like chess or
>>> it's not possible if you know perfect strategy, but it's always
>>> possible otherwise.
>> Do we have a miss-understanding?
>> I wrote that it is impossible for a good player to lose against
>> a bad player in a perfect information game (eg. go), but
>> a good play can loose in a game where some luck is involved.
> I believe that I am much stronger than IdiotBot. IdiotBot makes its
> moves at random. But it is not impossible that IdiotBot will beat me,
> by luckily happening to make good moves.
More information about the Computer-go