rambiz khalili [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> there is still one sentence in your mail which i don't think i really understand-due to my not perfect command of > English possibly. you write: "...each side is trying to maximise it's own equity by giving it's opponent the worst > possible best move. " what do you mean by the "worst possible best move"?! Consider a game without dice, such as noughts-and-crosses (tic-tac-toe). If both sides aim for a win directly by trying for three-in-a-row without considering the opponents move, then the player who goes first wins. This doesn't happen in real life; noughts-and-crosses, properly played, leads to a draw. By "worst possible best move", I mean that, for example, you pick the move that forces a certain draw rather than giving your opponent the choice of a win or a loss. You know your opponent will make the best move she can. When choosing your move, you act with this knowledge. You don't choose the move that will allow you to win if she makes a mistake, but loses if she plays her best move. You pick the move that blocks her winning move, even though this reduces your own chance to win. The best strategy is to choose the play that MINImizes your opponents MAXimum equity. The term "minimax" is used to describes this strategy. In backgammon, this is complicated by the use of dice. You don't know what your opponents best move is, because you don't know what she will roll on her next turn. Minimax strategy is still used, but adapted so that you pick the move where your opponent has the lowest AVERAGE equity for all combinations of dice on her next roll. Regards, Ian Shaw _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
