Is it "fair", in games of chance (Guess the Number & Battleship for example), to pre-determine the win based on a comparable chance ratio check, instead of letting the match play out naturally (human) strategy vs similar (AI) strategy? In Guess the Number for example, the player that starts has the best chance to win. And if the optimal strategy is used by all players (which in case of Guess the Number and Battleship can almost be expected) the chances of all players winning/losing are considered equal. So in a strictly mathematical sense these games are entirely meaningless, like counting to ten in turns and the first to ten wins, just obfuscated a little bit. W.O.P.R. aka Joshua would know! ;-) Can it be considered fair then, in a game of Battleship, for the computer (which always holds information about both players and therefore is able to win by cheating) to pre-determine the win or lose simply by using a similar chance ratio check instead of using AI strategy? Like playing Guess the Number without the computer ever really picking a number in memory, but rather calculate a win directly based on chance ratio (1:nrOfPlayers). This makes the very act of playing itself useless, because the computer can come up with an equaly honest prediction instantly. if( Math.floor(Math.random()*2) ) computer uses cheating to win; else computer uses cheating lose. The win/lose ratio doesn't change, and statistically speaking it wouldn't make any difference at all? But would you still consider it a "fair" game of Batleship if you knew?

You label 'Guess The Number' and 'Battheship' as games of chance, but still a minimum amount of skill involved. In the examples you've given... I feel if you can't win from the start, then it isn't fair.

EX: 'Guess The Number' tells you if your guess is too high, or too low. You use that information to give a better answer.. before running out of tries. Doesn't take much skill, but it does require a thought process.

A program could easily be rigged to cheat, and that's why I always avoided online gambling.

I was always very annoyed and felt cheated when game AI used knowledge it shouldn't have had to play better. Come on, AI programmers, work harder! ;)

On the other hand, cheating to make the game *easier* for beginning players seems like it might be a reasonable thing to do in certain cases, if you do it in a subtle way.

Quote: Original post by Edoc
You label 'Guess The Number' and 'Battleship' as games of chance, but still a minimum amount of skill involved. In the examples you've given... I feel if you can't win from the start, then it isn't fair.

If the optimal strategy is used by all players, it comes down to purely chance (guess where the boats are at intervals as big as the smallest boat, repeat until hit, then guess which side the boat continues in).

I'm talking fair as in comparison (your chance to win, relative to opponents). TicTacToe can't be won, but all players do have equal potential to win/lose/draw, so it can be called a fair game.

I think this sentence in my previous post explains the problem best: "This [calculating the winners/losers up front by chance ratio] makes the very act of playing itself useless, because the computer can come up with an equaly honest prediction instantly".

Even though it feels like cheating in every way, there isn't any detectable difference in gameplay or outcome. Can it even be considered cheating, how can we tell if the observable and measurable result is exactly the same?

It's like the old (meaby modern as well?) fruitmachines [EDIT -slotmachines] which actualy had a "win chance" adjustment, no random wheel spinning at all, but calculated wins. But is there really a difference in adjusting win chances mechanically (by increasing the nr of symbols on the wheels) or doing it electronically (it comes down to the same equations essentially).

[Edited by - Kirl on October 3, 2009 1:45:33 PM]

I think only in games where you can't make a mistake do I see this as being fair.
Like slot machine or lotto. I probably wouldn't care whether slot machine randomized 3 variables matching , or just ranomdized one variable based on the odds. As long as it outputs a result and my chances of winning came out the same.

As for the examples you're using, I don't buy it. How could you pull fast one and pre-determine the winner? on Battleship? If I pick same first positions everytime I played, and won nearly same amount as playing normal, I'd think the game either had really BAD AI or it was letting me win.

EDIT: Hmm but what if the computer adjusted your appropriate win/loss ratio for sloppy guessing? Now I'm starting to wonder... maybe I could be fooled in Battleship.

[Edited by - Edoc on October 3, 2009 11:50:16 AM]

Quote: Original post by Kirl
Even though it feels like cheating in every way, there isn't any detectable difference in gameplay or outcome. Can it even be considered cheating, how can we tell if the observable and measurable result is exactly the same?

Except that is is detectable, because IMHO your assumption of "everyone uses the most optimum strategy" is flawed. Say I'm using the most optimum battleship strategy, which means I should win 50% of the time - you fake the outcome so I do in fact win 50% of the time, fine. But now a second player comes along and uses a different strategy - maybe they think they've got something better, maybe they just havn't grasped the most optimum strategy because they're less experienced, but they're *still* going to win 50% of the time - despite the fact that they shouldn't.

Without playing the game out "properly" you don't give weak players a chance to learn and discover the most optimum strategy, because whatever they do will have the same chance of winning.

Quote: Original post by OrangyTang
Without playing the game out "properly" you don't give weak players a chance to learn and discover the most optimum strategy, because whatever they do will have the same chance of winning.

You're right, thanks for pointiong it out.

This question actually had some practical relevance, so thanks all!

Also bear in mind that even the simplest games can become challenging when played repeatedly. A single round of rock-paper-scissors is straightforward; you'd expect to win a third of the time, draw a third, and lose a third. But make it Best of 100 and suddenly you've got a whole complex level of strategy involved, where a strong player with a canny sense of pattern recognition can get significantly better odds of winning.

Quote: Original post by Trapper Zoid
A single round of rock-paper-scissors is straightforward; you'd expect to win a third of the time, draw a third, and lose a third. But make it Best of 100 and suddenly you've got a whole complex level of strategy involved, where a strong player with a canny sense of pattern recognition can get significantly better odds of winning.

There have even been AI programming competitions of rock-paper-scissors.