Carbon dioxide posted:

An interesting note about this game is about its computational complexity.

There are quite a lot of ways a game could possibly go, way too many for modern computers to calculate.

Even though teams full of computer scientists have been at it for decades, they've still not been able to design a computer program that can beat top tier professional Rock-Paper-Scissors players.

AlphaKretin posted:

What happened to Peggle

Really Pants posted:

paper "beating" rock just by covering it is extremely ludonarrative dissonance imho

Fedule posted:

Did someone say sources? There were two tournaments by the first person to do this; the first one produced the brutally effective "tit for tat" strategy that basically owned everyone else present despite being the smallest program there by a few orders of magnitude, and the second was held specifically to challenge an entire generation of programmers, strategists and ethicists to produce a strategy that could beat tit-for-tat (they couldn't). They concluded that the four things you needed to be effective were to assume good faith, retaliate against betrayal, be willing to forgive, and to act for the general good of all over the good of yourself.

The tournaments have been repeated endlessly since. There still isn't a quantifiably better strategy.

I don't know how much of such reasoning can apply to RPS though; RPS is like 100% metagame. I'm gonna be delighted to find out, though.

Really Pants posted:

basic meta-strategy begins with the "Fleischer Rhombus" i.e. a semi-closed fist which, given sufficient training, can be transitioned into rock, paper, or scissors quicker than the naked eye

ultrafilter posted:

Any interest in a series of informative posts on game theory? I think I can put together something that gets a lot of the basic ideas across in terms of Rock-Paper-Scissors and some other simple games.

Tevery Best posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neuq3p3IyP4

HardDiskD posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm932Sqwf5E

Carlioo posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C-mdFXKyBU

echidnagirl posted:

I'm rooting for team left, since that left hand happens to be mine.

GNU Order posted:

If you think team Right looks villainous now just wait till we take off the glove and show our final form

The rules posted:

No peeking in the other team's thread or the observer thread!

Gaffle posted:

So we had posts about what moves people tend to make after winning or losing a round, but what about after a draw? Usually I switch to whatever would have lost the draw round, like going from scissors to paper, anticipating my opponent to switch as well.

Jobbo_Fett posted:

USE SCISSORS!!!

TooMuchAbstraction posted:

I haven't been watching the threads; how many votes for dynamite have there been?

CirclMastr posted:

Time for me to analyze again. Hopefully this won't be too results-oriented, but my goal here is to try to decipher the decision-making process behind their moves. So, let's look at their behavior, and discuss what's exploitative, what's counter-exploitative, and what's GTO:

Round 1: We throw rock, the expected/most likely opening. They exploit with paper, and win.
Round 2: If we had stuck with expectations, we would have moved to the throw that would have won round 1, scissors. They threw rock to exploit, but we tied.

Where does that leave them? There's no solid exploitative play to follow a tie. Arguably, they could have reverted back to a round 1 strategy. Equally arguably, they could have expected a repeat throw. Either way:
Round 3: They expect us to throw rock. They throw paper to exploit, but we tie.

What could they learn from this? That either expectations were wrong (after a tie, we cycle to the next throw), or we are adopting exploitative throws (expecting them to throw rock with the same reasoning they used to expect us to throw rock). If the former were true, they would expect us to throw scissors next (cycling to the next throw). If the latter, they would expect us to throw paper to exploit rock (if they think we put them on reverting to rock after a tie) or scissors to exploit paper (if they think we think they repeat). But game history shows they don't revert to rock on a tie, so they rule that out. The upshot:
Round 4: They expect us to exploit and throw scissors. They throw rock to counter-exploit, but we tie.

Now they may be confused. We aren't playing exploitatively. Either we went to the bog standard rock opening again, or we're counter-exploiting and they have to go one level deeper. But! Game history shows that after we tied with rock before, we went paper. Do they go by theory, or history? If they think we're exploiting, they would expect scissors to exploit history's paper. If they think we're historical, they would expect paper as before. They decide:
Round 5: They expect us to exploit and throw scissors. They throw rock, and win.

Now they have us. They've put us on exploitative play. They know we won't throw paper, the throw that would have won us the previous round, because we've moved off expected plays from round 2. Their own history from round 1 to 2 shows that they don't adhere to "winner stays" and they know we know that, so they can't reliably counter-exploit. But with paper ruled out:
Round 6: They throw rock, knowing they can do no worse than tie. They win.

At this point they actually HAVE adhered to the "winner stays" expectation. But the considerations for round 7 are almost the same as round 6. We've shown we won't make expected plays anymore. And even if we surprise them, they're up 3-0 and can take a loss. But by now they have thrown 3 rocks in a row, and they might be thinking that we don't expect a fourth. It's less certain but odds are very low that we throw paper.
Round 7: They throw rock, almost knowing they can do no worse than tie. They tie.

So round 8 comes around, they're trying to lock up the sweep, and it's the first tie in a while. So they look at what happened before. Go back to round 4, where we tied with rock. What did we do then? We threw scissors and lost to their rock. Both teams have demonstrated they won't stick to one style of play. But we've tied with rock three times now: first we cycled to paper and tied again, second we cycled to scissors and lost. We haven't had any success, only tying. Do they expect us to stick to rock this time? If anything, they ought to rule out scissors (since we lost with it) and therefore throw paper, knowing they can at worst tie against paper and at best win against rock. But they don't. They throw rock for a fifth time. Why? The only justification I can see is if they felt that by throwing rock four times in a row, it would stop us from throwing paper, since we would never expect a fifth rock in a row. That would leave rock and scissors for us to throw, and their safe throw becomes:
Round 8: They throw rock, possibly because they ruled out paper and made rock no worse than a tie. We throw rock and tie.

So we have another rock-rock tie. We've followed rock-rock ties up first with paper, then scissors, now rock. We've cycled around, and they may put us on paper for the next throw. Additionally, we have not thrown the same move three times in a row to this point. History rules out rock, expected play is paper, either way:
Round 9: They throw scissors, either to exploit an expected paper or because they rule out rock. We throw rock, and win.

There may be some more confusion at this point. But this is new territory, our first win. They don't know how we'll respond, but we haven't been on strictly expected play in a while. If we were on expected play, we would throw rock next because winner stays. If we were on exploitative play, we would throw scissors next against an expected play of paper. But neither team is playing to expectations, and both teams know it. If they can't throw paper (against the expected play of rock), and they can't counter-exploit with rock (because it requires them to think we would assume they throw the expected move), that leaves scissors. It also defies the "loser moves" expectation, as a bonus. Or maybe that's the main reason and I'm too deep into yomi in my analysis.
Round 10: They throw scissors, in order to be unexpected on some level. We throw rock, and win.

It's now 3-2, things aren't looking too good for them. Not only did we throw rock four times in a row, but we succeeded with a "winner stays" play, just like they did. Our style is clearly changing again. Maybe they think we're just aping the five-rocks pattern, maybe they think we're going to stick with "winner stays" and play standard, expected moves. But either way, it's back to basics for them. Either they were too deep into yomi or not deep enough last round; either way, it's time to exploit.
Round 11: They throw paper to exploit an expected rock. We throw scissors and win.

Where does that leave us now? We just demonstrated exploitative play, immediately after expected play. They may think we set them up for it. They may think we're completely in their heads.
So let's look at the possibilities from their point of view:
1. We play standard, "winner stays," and throw scissors again.
2. We expect them to throw rock (would have won last round) and exploit with paper.

If they think we are on either of these plans, they would throw scissors. It ties against expected play, and wins against exploitative play. If this analysis is correct, we should throw Rock.

nine-gear crow posted:

It appears the lot of you have forced my hand. You'll thank me when this is all over.

I change my vote to Abstain and give Scissors the majority. And to destroy this game.

nine-gear crow posted:

I grow tired of this pathetic game.

Greetings Team Left. For those of you who do not know me, allow me to introduce myself. My name is nine-gear crow, Let's Play sub-forum super villain and a member of the failing Team Right and more importantly, I am here to defect. Not from Team Right. But from Rock Paper Scissors itself.

I come with vital information that can, if you decide to act on it, secure your victory in this war. Team Right has chosen to throw Scissors in Round 12 by majority vote. If you throw your Paper, you will lose the round and the game.

That said, if you change your vote to Rock, you will win. I can assure you though, my information is accurate. You will win. But it will be a tarnished win, a win everyone will know you cheated to acquire. Illegitimate. A dishonorable win.

So, ask yourselves. How far do you want to go to win? You say you want a win at any cost? Well, there's the key and the price. The majority of the votes are in on both sides. Covski will make the throw soon.

You can throw Paper and lose. You can throw Rock and win*. Or, perhaps, you can throw Scissors yourself and stalemate the game for another round. In which case, I'll be back, and we can do this all over again until someone makes the right choice.

You know what it is that I ask. The choice is yours.

90s Cringe Rock posted:

C) The players vote on which team wins.

someone awful. posted:

flipping a coin is more in the spirit of the thing IMO, but I'm really kind of disgusted it'd end like this.

Fedule posted:

The teams are supposed to not read this thread, right?

Nyaa posted:

Covski posted:

Round 12 is finished!

After the sudden deliberate betrayal of their team and the very spirit of Rock-Paper-Scissors by a certain player, the observer thread has adjudicated this round. The result:



gently caress NINE-GEAR CROW! IT IS A TIE!

Current score: Tied at 3-3

I can feel that you all agree that the game should have ended this round, and by right maybe it should have. You have all put up a marvellous fight, and it's been a joy and a great source of excitement to watch you battle. However, all things must come to an end.

Of course, we can't let the actions of one maverick decide how the game ends. Instead, the choice of who wins will be entirely in your hands. Thus, we are going to do something different for the thirteenth and final round of this game:

Let's play Prisoner's Dilemma!

You have one simple choice: Will you agree that you are both deserving winners of this game (cooperate), or will you claim that your team are the only worthy winners? (betray)

If you both cooperate, both teams will win with a score of 4-4.

If one team cooperates and the other betrays, the betraying team will win with a score of 4-3.

If both teams betray, both team will lose with a score of 3-3. The only winning move will have been not to play.

Extra rule by popular demand: If any team cooperates, nine-gear crow loses. If both teams betray, nine-gear crow triple-loses.

Round thirteen begins now. This game ends here. Make your choice.