Remember, back in the 60's people really didn't take game theory very
seriously. That's why that Merlin game's tic tac toe was so popular.
Nowadays we have u tube to show us how to win at TTT. Back then not so much.
C
On 5/8/2020 3:29 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
> > However, according to the New Yorker article the Manrobot beat the
> > human player five times in a row....
Consider the possibility that the writer took "did not lose 5 times in
a
row", and wrote that as "WON 5 times in a row".
Not following Fred. The writer wrote: "We got trimmed in five straight
games, and the vice-president in charge of marketing seemed very much
pleased." The slang is a bit before my time but I read this as the human
player lost five times in a row to the computer. Am I reading it wrong
or am
I missing something?
One of the problems with the use of street slang is that it changes,
sometimes rapidly. a 1920s meaning is not necessarily the same as the
meaning half a century or more later.
"We got trimmed" is not the same as "it beat the human player".
Beating the human player is possible only if the human player does not
play well. A competent human player (no misteaks) would be able to
force a draw. As games go, it's not a great one, because once both
players learn it, then winning isn't going to happen. To make it into a
practical game, one could add a level of chance or skill to be able to
make a move, rather then simple CHOICE (as was done by some TV game shows)
Otherwise, first player takes center;
other player takes a corner;
first player takes opposite corner, . . .
IFF the writer knew what had happened, it would be reasonable to claim,
"the computer DID NOT LOSE five times in a row."
Is THAT what the writer meant by "trimmed"?
OR, did the writer simply not understand the POSSIBLE outcomes of the
competition?
