Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[UXLZ]

Chess has been 'solved'. It has a low enough number of possible moves and gamestates that a modern supercomputer can take the option that is ALWAYS the best.

[alexandertnt]

Chess has been 'solved'. It has a low enough number of possible moves and gamestates that a modern supercomputer can take the option that is ALWAYS the best.

A quick Google seems to suggest otherwise.

Do you have a citation of some sorts?

[Shadowlord]

The only thing I'm aware of being solved is tic-tac-toe, and that's no surprise because you can solve that without even needing a computer.

[Stuebi]

After finishing ME 1 & 2 in my marathon, I'm afraid to turn on ME 3 again.

Basically, my peeve with most morality systems is the fact that they tend to be strictly binary. ME isnt THAT bad in this regard, but where it truly manages to niggle me to death, is the stupid charm/intimidate mechanic.

For those of you who are unaware:

ME 1 had Charm and intimidate as skills. You just needed to level them and in certain conversations, they gave access to a new talk option that would usually result in a better outcome to the current situation.

Since that gulped down a TON of Levels, they changed it in ME 2. This time it was based around your Paragon / Renegade (Jesus / Satan) metre. The charm / intimidate options basically weighted the amount of points you had versus the amount you potentially could have gathered at that point. Some of the dialog options had low requirements, like 40-60 %, others had up to 80 %. It made me really paranoid to get all the Paragon choices, because I was afraid I could miss out on some important dilagoue later. But at least I could allways keep track and feel relatively safe as long as I stayed strictly Paragon.

ME3 takes it to the limit, with having reputation requirements for a lot of dialogue options AND adding timed missions. So I'm stuck in this constant loop of being afraid that a mission could expire / fail, and worrying about not having enough reputation to unlock those conversation options. I can barely play 5 minutes without swapping to a guide Online and double checking if I take a critical mission way too early.

[EagleV]

The only thing I'm aware of being solved is tic-tac-toe, and that's no surprise because you can solve that without even needing a computer.

Checkers is solved too. Chess most definitely is not.

[notquitethere]

I can barely play 5 minutes without swapping to a guide Online and double checking if I take a critical mission way too early.

That... doesn't sound like a very fun way to play the game.

[Shadowlord]

I didn't use a guide for ME3 and when I got to the part where it finalized the score, I had more points than I needed to unlock all the endings, even without having played multiplayer. Of course, I didn't know that, since I wasn't using a guide. I also didn't know I was past the part where the score could not be altered by multiplayer. So before I finished the game, I played multiplayer until it showed 100% even though I did not need to, because I didn't know it wouldn't do anything (or that I didn't need to).

(It turned out the multiplayer was actually fun, though.)

I'm not sure how you could need a guide to get enough points, to be honest. IIRC I was way over the number of points needed, and that's without multiplayer, which can effectively double your points if you don't wait too long to do it. (The game doesn't bother to tell you about the cutoff and it ought to)

[Raddish]

The needing to play MP to get enough points was before they patched it and did the reworked endings I believe

[Darkmere]

In the vanilla unpatched version the only thing multiplayer was necessary for was the extra 3-second video in Red of Shep being miraculously not dead somehow.

As for the critical missions, I seem to remember it being pretty obvious jsut because the critical lockout missions were the most main plot important. You could just clear the odd side ones first and put the plot missions on hold until you had no other choice.

[FArgHalfnr]

Stupid generic fantasy races
I guess this complaint includes more than just video games, but I absolutely hate it when a fantasy game limit itself to the few standard fantasy races, and even more when they are given their even more generic personalities. What I really hate about it is not their concept but rather the fact that they were so massively overused. Even worse to me when a game try to pretend to be imaginative by adding a single new race which is presented as "different" or "unique" while being basically a human with one or two main differences and having a culture that is blatantly a rip-off from a real life civilization (Minor variation of another fantasy races also counts). I'd love to actually see some creativity from the genre that is supposed to be all about creativity.

Seeing standard races being interpreted differently is a step in the right direction, but I don't think it's enough.

[Neonivek]

Suikeoden has the Kobolds who are absolutely adorable

[FArgHalfnr]

Suikeoden has the Kobolds who are absolutely adorable

I did a quick google search and OH MY GOD THEY'RE SO FUCKING ADORABLE.
But seriously they look like they're basically a new specie in everything but the name. I wonder why they chosen to name them Kobolds.

I really like the fact that they're original.

[UXLZ]

The only thing I'm aware of being solved is tic-tac-toe, and that's no surprise because you can solve that without even needing a computer.

Checkers is solved too. Chess most definitely is not.

Ah, I must have gotten confused with Chess and Checkers. I remembered it being one of the games more complex than tic-tac-toe (which is insanely simple.)

Regardless, I'm pretty sure it has gotten to the point where it's impossible for a human to beat a computer at Chess.

[notquitethere]

Regardless, I'm pretty sure it has gotten to the point where it's impossible for a human to beat a computer at Chess.

According to the wiki page on the Human-Computer chess wars, you are correct.

Beating AI in a game is often about exploiting specific aspects of their stupidity. You figure out how they behaviour in certain circumstances. That's why facing live humans is a bit more exciting. There's usually a wider range of tactics you face or at least a larger chance of cunning and unpredictability.

[alexandertnt]

Beating AI in a game is often about exploiting specific aspects of their stupidity.

I'm not sure what you mean. You agreed that it was impossible for humans to beat computers and then gave a description on how humans go about beating computers.

But no, it hasn't gotten to the point where it's impossible for a human to beat a computer. Computers have become extremely good, but not perfect at chess. Making such a statement would require chess to be solved