Will you be dumb enough to buy Beyond The Sword?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Checkers is far more complex and difficult than civilization could ever be. Civilization, in its present form, is a game made for 5 year olds. If you find Civ4 difficult you more than likely find making breakfast in the morning dfficult as well.

You're hilariously wrong. Checkers is a trivial game. Civ4 is far more complex and difficult.

[EyesOfNight]

I guarantee there is no one on this site that can beat me at checkers. Civilization is a little kid's game. I'm sorry if you find it complex because it clearly has no depth.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
I guarantee there is no one on this site that can beat me at checkers.

I can

Any modern computer can easily defeat any human player.

[EyesOfNight]

well, I'm not on the level to beat computer programs, not anymore anyway. I could beat Nexus and Blitz on numerous lines, but only the grandmasters can beat the full version programs and consistently draw them.

[Kuciwalker]

Wrong. Computers have been better than humans at Checkers for quite some time, and competitive for half a century.

Checkers AI's in consumer programs are designed to be human-beatable, obviously.

[Elok]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
I guarantee there is no one on this site that can beat me at checkers. Civilization is a little kid's game. I'm sorry if you find it complex because it clearly has no depth.

...whereas you have been beaten by polytubbies at the less-complex kids' game of Civ...huh? Which way are you arguing, again?

[EyesOfNight]

No, unless something changed within the past 5 years. I haven't played seriously in a long time. Not since probably 2000. Dr. Marion Tinsley never lost to a computer program.

[EyesOfNight]

...whereas you have been beaten by polytubbies at the less-complex kids' game of Civ...huh? Which way are you arguing, again?

Let me try to explain this to you again since you have trouble understanding this. As a game increases in complexity, the possibility for greater differentiation between players increases. Therefore, it would be easier for me to win at checkers than it would be for me to win in Civ4. Due to Civ4's simplicity, there are only so many things I can do to get ahead and therefore it is very possible for me to lose in Civ4. Also, I should note that I had double the cities, map control, and much higher score. That game I lost actually supported my argument rather than hurt it.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by MJW
Here was the PTWintersiteDG in a nutshell.

Wow, never thought I'd see a post about the ISDG in this thread. That game was a lot of fun, particularly the strategy behind the invasion of GCA and the economic buildup the early part of the game. That was definitely a challenging starting location.

[Blake]

Originally posted by MJW
Oh, and the reason why (I think) Blake made a better AI then Firaxis is because he's smatter then the people who made the AI.

Not bad, I'd be wary of saying smarter, that's pretty subjective. Although to be subjective - the only player I consider may be smarter than me is Sirian (sorry Vel ) and what I'm talking about is REALLY understanding the game mechanics - understanding the game to the point where not only is everything understood, but all intuition is backed up also with solid reason.

The reason I can write a good AI, is that I have a painstakingly good understanding of the game, almost like having a mathematical model of the perfect player (all "human" decisions reduced to machine algorithms) - I'm also good enough as a programmer to convert that model into code.

I don't think that's the kind of talent that a company can just throw money around to get. Firaxis did exactly the right thing - they released the SDK, and when one of the best CIV players in the world heeded the call to improve the AI, they took him seriously.

edit:
I also have to say that Soren did an excellent job on the AI, but Soren was programming for a rapidly moving target, and was also busy with other stuff - not having the oppurtunity to learn playing the game. I would certainly not claim to be a better programmer than Soren.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
No, unless something changed within the past 5 years. I haven't played seriously in a long time. Not since probably 2000. Dr. Marion Tinsley never lost to a computer program.

As I said, computers have been able to play at a world-class level since the 1950's.

[EyesOfNight]

Unlike you, I have books that have the games that Tinsley actually played vs Chinook and others. You're going by a wikipedia entry for your information? What a joke. The fact is that the best human players are still better than the best computer programs. Also, they weren't even in the same ****ing league as humans in the 1950s. YOu obviously don't know dick about checkers.

[Kuciwalker]

[Kuciwalker]

Kid, I've written AI's that play chess better than most humans in school. We don't even bother with checkers because it's so much simpler (and therefore easier to write good heuristics for).

[EyesOfNight]

Great, go write an AI for Firaxis since they obviously don't know dick about how to do it.