nuke

I'm not sure how i should feel about this!

the most dumbest post i've ever seen in my life... Arma is shit to be exact

the mostest dumbest post you've ever seen in your life.

FTFY

ouch gg

ez, i got this

Maybe replace arma II with QL duel eh?

No =(

QL Duel is a game Go.

High skill chess is mostly pattern recognition, whereas Go is mainly creative problem solving which is why computers, like bots in Quake, are nowhere near being comparable to a human opponent.

That's the way I like to think of it anyway. =)

you play go?

damn

go is fun man :D
Back when Hikaru played it I went from lowest kyu (is it 28?) to around 2-4kyu (on kgs).

i once tried to learn it, but couldnt find rules in polish

http://www.smart-games.com/igowin.html

great analogy, havent thought of this (due to barely knowing go)

im thinking of starting it

nice post

High skill chess is NOT mostly pattern recognition. That's just wrong, sorry.

This.

Shiiiiiitt i plussed by accitend..

I wouldn't say Battlefield is any different to COD in terms of skill/strategy etc.

I think that guns in BF3 has a little more recoil and less random spread then in CoD. Weapon damage in CoD is also higher which makes camping easier, especially with explosives such as grenade launchers.

You also regenerate health faster in CoD. But these are so minor differences that they are barely noticeable.

Strategy is somewhat different in that in BF3 you throw ammo and health packs on each others faces and call it teamplay. You can also revive people in BF3 but that is really all the differences.

the other one was better

Can I just say that anyone who compares any competitive game where there is imperfect information to chess should get dragged out into the street and shot. The difference between perfect information: chess and imperfect information: quake, poker, sc2, cs etcetc is a huge fucking deal. :P

edit: if I come across angry it's cause I just casted 8hrs of cs:go. xD

chess doesnt have perfect information, and its a gamble game

It's not. On high level play it's merely about would can process the informations better. If it was a gamble game you should be able to win some games vs a gm based on pure luck. Won't happen.

as long as you're not mind reader you never have perfect information.

when i said its a gamble game, i meant you recognize patterns of play, and adapt to it. however, if you make mistake in step one, you're fucked. so basiclly you gamble :-)

Imo it's about solutions. It's safe to say that you probably cannot come up with a new strategy. So it's all about knowing and recognizing the moves your opponent makes and then knowing who played that against master xyz back in 1875.

If you call it gambling when you don't recognize the opening of your opponent and therefore fail in midgame, ok, in chess I'd call it lack of skill (or adjutants). :)

And you don't need to be a mind reader. There is no hidden information.

perfect information in chess means you know your enemy strategy. so yeah jedi mind tricks come in handy :-)

even if you recognize a pattern, you can never be 100% sure your enemy will use the strat you recognized.

There is more than one possible outcome and you have to consider them all. And there is no hidden information regarding your opponents options. It can only happen that he surprises you with something you just didn't think about. But you could have, even without jedi mind tricks. Just get better and know more plays.

You can be 100% sure the enemy is playing what he's playing. The plan doesn't matter, only the execution does.

It can only happen that he surprises you with something you just didn't think about.

thank you :-)

That's gambling for you? Interesting...

as i said earlier, gambling as doing decision on not complete information. it varies from playing poker or gambling machines, but its still a gamble.

Just because you fail to process the information doesn't mean it's not there. In poker or at gambling machines you have a real lack of information, that's why it's luck based.

So you really expect to beat a GM in chess on pure luck?

poker is far from luck based.

no i dont, and i never said it. but game between 2 equal players has its own element of gambling


e: gamble =/=luck

I know you never said it. That's why I asked (twice).

Could it be that by "gamble" you simply mean one doesn't know if he wins? Imo that's implied by "game". Otherwise please elaborate on how exactly you gamble in chess.

And I'm still curious about those hidden informations. It's not hidden if you just don't recognize it. All relevant informations are on the board.

as i already explained, i find the possibility of wrongly recognising the pattern your enemy is using a gamble. thats the hidden information.

i have no idea how many valid chess strats exist, but i bet some of them have similar moves. now, as long as you dont know, and you dont know which one your enemy is using, you gamble with setting your counter actions.

i find the possibility of wrongly recognising the pattern your enemy is using a gamble. thats the hidden information

Fair enough. It's wrong tho :-)

provide me with proofs its wrong :D otherwise we stand on disagreeing :D

More like you stand misinformed. I'd never disagree with ingenuous people :)

some kind of chess diploma for winning a tournament would be ok too.


cause atm you just try to be smarter than you are

poker is played on odds where unless you have the nuts you have only a certain percentage of correct information. that's why it's gambling - because you have to make a judgement involving the unpredictably of cards to come. even if you make no mistakes and play these percentages and the player perfectly you can still lose due to the randomness involved, happens all the time.

yes i do know how the poker works :-)

i play regulary with friends

but you don't play chess? :)

not regulary.

whole conversation was about semantics, lorfa cleared it out quite fast :-)

There is a A LOT of hidden information in chess, and it the deception begins from the early game -- Magnus Carlsen is (again) a good example of this: he is player with relatively orthodox openings, however, he excels at the mid/late game, often catching his opponents by surprise. Sure you can "well, just spend enough time on the board, and you will figure it out" but it's really not like that. You need to have a deep level of understanding to "see" it.

Carlsen seems to be doing well in the Sinquefield cup.

Not as fun to watch it live as the tromsø cup :-/ I rather enjoyed the video commentary with short and what not.

I haven't followed chess since the London Classic, waiting to see WC :D

I don't know who will win really, kind of rooting for Anand.

A lot of people are saying that Carlsen will win easily but I'm not so sure. Anand will have superhuman preparation for the event.

Perfect information in chess has nothing to do with strategy.

"In game theory, perfect information describes the situation when a player has available the same information to determine all of the possible games (all combinations of legal moves) as would be available at the end of the game.
In game theory, a game is described as a game of perfect information if perfect information is available for all moves. Chess is an example of a game with perfect information as each player can see all of the pieces on the board at all times. Other examples of perfect games include tic tac toe, irensei, and go. Games with perfect information represent a small subset of games. Card games where each player's cards are hidden from other players are examples of games of imperfect information."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information

edit: woops, wrong rpl msg

"It's safe to say that you probably cannot come up with a new strategy."

Wrong, if that was the case, you wouldn't see revivals of old lines, with new moves.

"So it's all about knowing and recognizing the moves your opponent makes and then knowing who played that against master xyz back in 1875."

No it's not, at least, not completely. What you said is obviously helpful, but there is much more to chess than just that.

"If you call it gambling when you don't recognize the opening of your opponent and therefore fail in midgame, ok, in chess I'd call it lack of skill (or adjutants). :)"

A strong opening game doesn't guarantee victory. Yes, players like Kasparov were infamous for their opening preparation, but if you look at the current #1 (Magnus Carlsen), his lack of opening preparation is criticized compared to other SGMs.

That's actually not how perfect information is defined. It's a game theory term that means that both players have all the information available.

Chess is a perfect information game since both players know all the positions of the pieces. It is the same for Go.

Examples of imperfect information games are bridge, poker and scrabble.

i stand corrected

dumbest thing I've read in a long time.

i suggest reading own posts. you would get suprised

You can see all the information that your opponent has to make a decision and he can see all the information you have to make a decision.

My examples without perfect information: you can only estimate what is fact for your opponent meaning that you are constantly trying to make the best play through deductive reasoning and estimation.

One of the largest and most impactful concepts in games with imperfect information like Quake, SC2, CS, DOTA, is the concept of controlling information. This is a non-factor in a game like chess.

basiclly what i wrote to malk

I haven't heard any cast lately but I hope that you use the "controling information" a lot in your casts. :)
It's somewhat where players like me (0 aim, lacking movement etc) get their skill from ;p

"You can see all the information that your opponent has to make a decision and he can see all the information you have to make a decision."

You can see all the pieces, and their positions, but you cannot see the next move, or their plan -- which is a big part of the game. And just merely seeing the board is far from enough "information" to decide what to do in the next move, and next series of moves.

That's irrelevant given the definition of a perfect information game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_information

Knowing the opponent's decisions is not a necessary condition.

"In game theory, perfect information describes the situation when a player has available the same information to determine all of the possible games (all combinations of legal moves) as would be available at the end of the game."

Even if it's impossible due to time-limits, and lack of computing power? The problem I have here is that it assume that the board is a self-interpreting symbol, that will give you the answer if you look hard enough. That's really not feasible in chess, because you can make a move that only has implication 2, 4, 10, etc.. move later. This appears like a technical use of "perfect information" so I am happy to concede that it may be the case that chess provides perfect information, however, it just doesn't sit well with me because what you see, is not usually what you get (in chess at least).

Even if it's impossible due to time-limits, and lack of computing power?

Yes. Notice it says "all the information to determine the possible games". Even if you can't technically find all the possible games due to time constraints, you still have the information necessary to find them all.

Moreover, a definition taking account of these limits would have to be terribly strict. You don't want a non-perfect information game to become a perfect-information game because we can suddenly throw more computational power at it or because we found better algorithms.

In a way you can get close to perfect information in Quake Live if you get into positions for every item that you either pick up or hear them so you can time every one to the second. You don't know where your opponent is unless they make a sound but you can spam at spots to check if he's camping or walking around corners. If you keep track of the enemy position their next decision can only be a small number of possibilities anyway. Ofcourse this isn't perfect by definition and it's hard to keep everything in your head during a game.

I think we should assume we can obtain perfect information while trying to get better at Quake. Basically find the safest ways to play quake where you always have information available to you especially when out of control.

Are you implying that csgo is making you angry/casting in general makes you angry / thorin makes you angry? ;o

8hrs of casting makes me tired, 8hrs of csgo casting meant that I had to endure through a huge quantity of delays making me irritable =(

edit: I don't really get angry though, it's incredibly rare tbh, I'm pretty chill!

You wanna be an ice cold motherfucker when your'e playing quake casting (c) DDK

How is Thorin as a co-caster? Be honest. lol

game theory is largely about semantics. which sucks. words should come natural

posting in a hitsu thread

Quake is great, but it's really child's play compared to chess, not even close to the same level in terms of tactics, strategy, preparation, planning, etc, etc... Not to mention, the level of competition, the standard of play, are higher.

Well, imagine if quake had been played for 2000 years on the same map with a non-random spawn system.

CHESS WITH GUNZ YO

No, that is wrong. Chess is constantly developing, and evolving, without requiring major rule changes -- the tactics, and strategy continues to improve.

Award for completely missing the point goes to..... .

Do you play any chess? Are you aware of the history of it's development? Even a little?

Yes. Yes and a lot.

still missing the point though yo...

potat touched on it..think quake is more layered/complex..if lets say there were 100 tdm clans and youd made 10 divisions, each team from the div above would easily beat the team in the div below, wheres in chess if you had that many chess competitors the differences in divisions wouldn't be so noticeable and a person from a div below has a higher chance of winning to a person from a div above him, compared to quake.

But i wouldnt know, since i never play chess or know what it is about. Apart from the very basics

tl:dr chess is probably more complex then quake

Quake is not more complex, it's far simpler. If we take your example of TDM, the same thing would happen in chess.

Technically, Quake has a higher branching factor. Players also have less time available to make their decisions. While a lot of possible moves can be pruned easily it's hard to tell how many remain that are viable. On the other hand, if you freeze the game at one point, it's easier, with some approximation, to find a similar situation in another match. That's because even though the branching factor is very high, situations have many parent nodes and p^layers are not too innovative.

I'm not saying Quake is more complex. Just that it's hard to tell how complex it would be if the players were extremely good.

Guys comparing chess to Quake is not really the best thing to do.

One is real time and the other is turn based. Which makes them rather different.

An example of this with old WW2 turn based simulations. Where you had to give your soldiers orders and they performed them, then 15 - 30 seconds later the game paused and you had to give them new orders, then you pressed continue. You had to take in factors as the terrain they where in if they where concealed and protected from enemy fire. Soldiers would get scared if they where out numbered and if you took to many casualties, your soldiers would flee from the battlefield if they got to scared. Tanks had weaker armour on the sides and back which where things you had to take in to account while moving them. The strategy of how to move your soldiers and tanks where really complex where as games like SC2 you don't have to take those factors into account. Marines will stand up straight while shooting, not searching for cover, never hide etc etc.

SC2 has other factors that makes that game more complex such as resource handling and unit construction. While turn based games had more complexity in combat. Which of these takes most skill is hard to compare since they require different skills.

Comparing turn based games with real time games is not really the best thing to do.

Quake is turn based with 120 turns per second. ;D

quake vs chess discussion is old and stupid

quake vs poker then?

Better since in poker you can hide information from your opponent and catch him off guard. While in chess everyone can see your every move.

yeah, by talking about perfect information i noticed how similar poker and quake are :-)

I think we all agree on the fact that Quake is nevertheless pretty fuckin' awesome!

No no no! We have to justify playing a video game by comparing it to chess and professional athletics!

I think people have always looked down on sports as a way of earning money, or at least when the sport is new. Form the beginning footballers(soccer players) earned barely anything but later on people were whining about them earning more then a factory worker. Look at how that turned out.

I would guess that it was even worse before that. Image during the ancient Greece when they contributed barely anything to society.

Speaking of ancient Greece. During the original Olympics they had one Olympic event similar to boxing. They however had leather gloves on, and on the gloves they had glued small rocks so it would damage thier opponent even more. They dug out the remains of the competitors and examined their skeletons and the guys where huge, they looked like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Just image having somebody like Arnold punching you in the face with a rock. I mean when you lost at that sport you really lost. I cant imagine them having many teeth left.

quake gets worse everytime i start the game tho

... or!








... diminishing skills. :o :F :)

gotta be honest with u guy, thats not a concern

Is there any human activity in which hitsu isn't a grandmaster?

Every single one of them?

Peeing while standing

more blind hate because i exposed your ignorance yesterday? adorable <3

show me where i said im chess grandmaster. or even that im good at it. whole conversation was about semantics, and lorfa cleared it out by noticing perfect information is a game theory term.



and yeah, i got vast knowledge on shitload of topics. result of my general education and intelligence.

you're a boisterous buffoon and not much else.

ow thank you, exactly what i am aiming for most of the time :-)

http://www.wikihow.com/Be-Humble

and how does it affect current situation, when i get flamed by some internet random, well known for his hate towards me and lack of social life?