Your Favorite Boardgame

[Violet]

I'm talking about games when you have opponents that are identical to human opponents except replaced by AI, and the AI doesn't cheat or anything. The point is, humans are smarter - unless it's Deeper Blue playing chess or something.

Your argument does not hold up to the advancement of technology. In particular, the more advanced computer technology becomes, the worse it fares, to the point that the computer vastly outstrips the lifeform's intellectual capacity. Also, if you were truly talking about games where the opponents are identical to human opponents (save that they are against AI)... then what are you even saying? Their capacities are identical? Rather, I took your words together as a whole and it seemed to be an argument against the computer's capacity to utterly outthink a person (hence the former part of my response)

AIs can win if they have you outnumbered or some otherwise unfair advantage. But once you've played online, you learn the smart tricks they can't do as smartly or maybe can't even do at all.

Humans can win if they have an 'AI' outnumbered or some otherwise unfair advantage. But once the human has played against other humans and learned to outplay their stupid fellows: their new tactics you will find laughable as you smite them with a solid strategy whenever they dare show their face to you again. Don't they know that while the human's away, the imp will play?

For AI to be smarter and be able to win under completely fair settings, it would have to be an extremely simplistic game - like as simple as chess or something. Or you'd just have to be inexperienced.

EvF

Chess is simple? Chess is single layered... but don't even attempt to call it simple.

An "Ai" need only be programed very well to be "smarter"... and if this was really an "AI" we are talking about, then one would expect it to learn and better itself. As for winning under completely fair settings... that happens all of the time. At least it does with what I call "fair". What is this "completely fair setting" that never happens for you?

[Edwardo Piet]

Your argument does not hold up to the advancement of technology. In particular, the more advanced computer technology becomes, the worse it fares, to the point that the computer vastly outstrips the lifeform's intellectual capacity.

I don't know of it being the case yet. You get an AI to control a human character and the AI won't be able to control it as tactically as the better human players. I was talking about the present, not the future. I am talking about the present state of technology.

Humans can win if they have an 'AI' outnumbered or some otherwise unfair advantage. But once the human has played against other humans and learned to outplay their stupid fellows: their new tactics you will find laughable as you smite them with a solid strategy whenever they dare show their face to you again. Don't they know that while the human's away, the imp will play?

Tactics you learn off human players tend to be considerably more evolved and complex than ones just programmed into AI programs in any game I've played.

Chess is simple? Chess is single layered... but don't even attempt to call it simple.

I mean simple enough for an AI to be skillful enough to beat a world-class chess player, a chessmaster.

As for winning under completely fair settings... that happens all of the time. At least it does with what I call "fair". What is this "completely fair setting" that never happens for you?

Fair settings in the sense of the AI having an equally powerful character or characters (or 'units') as the human player and playing by exactly the same rules, without cheating. Humans can learn strategies that machines still aren't capable of doing yet as insofar as I know. Humans are still smarter than AI opponents. For AI to be more powerful and difficult, it has to be the old-fashioned single player campaign/story mode where on the higher difficulty levels the AI has all sorts of unfair or unbalanced advantages (not even playing by the same rules, or it 'cheating' or whatever).

EvF

[Violet]

I don't know of it being the case yet. You get an AI to control a human character and the AI won't be able to control it as tactically as the better human players. I was talking about the present, not the future. I am talking about the present state of technology.

How about that advanced chess program?

Even when it comes to current technological capacity... it is quite possible to create a synthetic intelligence with a greater capacity to think and learn than a current typical human. Cheap? No. Small? No. Blue? I might give you that one.

Tactics you learn off human players tend to be considerably more evolved and complex than ones just programmed into AI programs in any game I've played.

"more evolved"? "complex"? Such ambiguity followed by an argument from anecdote?

I highly doubt you have ever played a game against an "AI". You really should stop calling any computer you've played against more than a simple construct.

I mean simple enough for an AI to be skillful enough to beat a world-class chess player, a chessmaster.

We're calling a thing simple because it can beat the best?

That seems ridiculous to me. What then do we call an "AI" that can't beat a chessmaster? "Nomnom-munchi-wakka-ja"?

Fair settings in the sense of the AI having an equally powerful character or characters (or 'units') as the human player and playing by exactly the same rules, without cheating. Humans can learn strategies that machines still aren't capable of doing yet as insofar as I know. Humans are still smarter than AI opponents. For AI to be more powerful and difficult, it has to be the old-fashioned single player campaign/story mode where on the higher difficulty levels the AI has all sorts of unfair or unbalanced advantages (not even playing by the same rules, or it 'cheating' or whatever).

I disagree with your idea of "fair" is. In my understanding, it does not mean "equal". If indeed (for sake of argument, and I do hope you realize I'm playing the devils advocate yet again) the human player is quite capable of doing more with less... then the computer needs to be buffed in some way (if the idea is to create a challenging fight for the player). To do otherwise is unfair to the computer.

Also, if a machine 'learns' your behavior (which they can currently, especially and all the more so with common SI in the future), it can come up with strategies specifically against what it anticipates to be your strategy. Further... (and I'm referring to common current technology here) some programs are demonstrably much more capable than the human player (In example: chess).

[Autumnlicious]

Risk. Do I sound really old school when I say that?

I can't help it, I love taking over the world.

Last time I saw Risk played was during a weekend that I barely remember in a smokey haze. Still, even with everyone heavily stoned, a fight almost broke out over it. That game is not meant to be played among friends.

[Pippy]

I have a fascination with board games. Love 'em. Hate Monopoly. Yeah Risk. Catan is classic. I think I have to say Go is the best. Like chess, but actually hard. The secret to Go is to get into a deep meditative trance so that you are at one point 17 moves ahead of your opponent.

I'm making a tafl variant of Irish Fidchell. Making my buddy a nice Backgammon board.

First pick, Go.

Board games. Love 'em.

[Xyster]

Co'ed Nakid Twister Body oil edition.....

[Violet]

Co'ed Nakid Twister Body oil edition.....

How does education factor into it...?

[leo-rcc]

Co'ed Nakid Twister Body oil edition.....

How does education factor into it...?

Physical education and the study of anatomy of course. DUH.

[Violet]

Co'ed Nakid Twister Body oil edition.....

How does education factor into it...?

Physical education and the study of anatomy of course. DUH.

I honestly don't think either of those have anything to do with his enjoyment of 'Nakid Twister: Body Oil Edition'...

I wonder, Xyster... do you prefer to actually play it, or watch other people playing it?

[fr0d0]

/Thread lowered