My mom is always bugging me that i dont play board games enough

[Durelen]

Chess simplistic? Though the rules may be limiting, from a tactical standpoint… well there is probably more documentation for chess tactics than for all p&p games combined. 15 moves? I suppose you are taking this data from one of those hand held games they made back in the 1980’s?

Smoke a dragon out of a cave? Is that possible?? I’m sure some computer somewhere knows the answer.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Chess simplistic? Though the rules may be limiting, from a tactical standpoint… well there is probably more documentation for chess tactics than for all p&p games combined. 15 moves? I suppose you are taking this data from one of those hand held games they made back in the 1980’s?

Smoke a dragon out of a cave? Is that possible?? I’m sure some computer somewhere knows the answer.

No game on earth has ever let you do anything resembling that on any large scale. Why? Because they CANNOT predict what will happen.

And yeah, chess is simplistic, sorry, but modeling engines is tougher then writing chess programs.

 

[Durelen]

No game on earth has ever let you do anything resembling that on any large scale. Why? Because they CANNOT predict what will happen.

And yeah, chess is simplistic, sorry, but modeling engines is tougher then writing chess programs.

Okay difference of opinion. You say chess is a simple game and easy to master and I disagree. You say computer algorithms “CANNOT” (emotional shout?) anticipate moves and I disagree. I’m happy, or wise enough to leave it at that on this thread.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Okay difference of opinion. You say chess is a simple game and easy to master and I disagree. You say computer algorithms “CANNOT” (emotional shout?) anticipate moves and I disagree. I’m happy, or wise enough to leave it at that on this thread.

Chess, in it's essence is very simplistic. Six pieces, all of which can only move one way, with 3 special moves. Hardly complicated. The fact that such a simplistic thing can have so many variations is what makes it facinating.

And I was saying, not that the computer can't react to any chess move, but that the computer can't react to anything it's not programmed to anticipate. For instance in quake you SHOULD be able to shoot a rocket at the ceiling to bring it down on someone's head, if the game was realistic. It's not.

 

[Ryder]

I wonder if there isn't a little variation in the terms 'complex' and 'simplistic' here. Sure, chess doesn't introduce new elements in-game, but its core, though unchanging, is pretty complicated. And yes, rpgs do have more options, they are dynamic in nature and obviously allow for more options, but that doesn't necessitate they will be more 'complex', often the reverse is true, actions are simplified, things are reduced to 'chances' and whatnot. I suppose a really well run rpg would be more 'complicated' than chess, but that doesn't make it more or less fun or even strategic. Oh well, these games I fear don't share enough common ground to compare in any meaningful way.

 

[Durelen]

And that’s exactly the standpoint concerning computerized games, it can be programmed to anticipate. There are no limits to what can be done. The only limits are in regards to the programmer’s skill and imagination. So sure, the quake engine can be programmed to do such things but for whatever reason they did not.

Sure the base of chess is simplistic, but that’s not the point. If you programmed chess that way then it would take two players to play it on the computer. Much of the programming for a chess game is in it’s AI so one player can play against a computer. If you took all the chess strategy books in the world and programmed tem in you would have such a bloated program that would even get Bill Gates excited.

As for P&P, as I said I didn’t bring it up in the first place, you did. P&P is not a board game. This thread is about board games and why they don’t get played as much anymore. I have far greater issues with many of the pagan P&P games than how they would play on a computer system.

 

[ThePhoenix]

And that’s exactly the standpoint concerning computerized games, it can be programmed to anticipate. There are no limits to what can be done. The only limits are in regards to the programmer’s skill and imagination. So sure, the quake engine can be programmed to do such things but for whatever reason they did not.

Sure the base of chess is simplistic, but that’s not the point. If you programmed chess that way then it would take two players to play it on the computer. Much of the programming for a chess game is in it’s AI so one player can play against a computer. If you took all the chess strategy books in the world and programmed tem in you would have such a bloated program that would even get Bill Gates excited.

As for P&P, as I said I didn’t bring it up in the first place, you did. P&P is not a board game. This thread is about board games and why they don’t get played as much anymore. I have far greater issues with many of the pagan P&P games than how they would play on a computer system.

And that's your perogative. I'm simply pointing out that NO programmer can anticipate everything you want to do, and no program could possibly be large enough to take in every possibility, so board games will never become obsolete.

On the chess being simplistic - I'm simply pointing out the basis is simplistic, so its easy to create a program to deal with possibilitys. Try to program an engine simulation that accounts for everything sometime. That's much harder.