Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: June ::
Re: Crux Challenge
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1187  Friday, 13 June 2003

[1]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 12 Jun 2003 16:50:37 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1177 Great Statistical vs Human Sonnet 146 Crux
Challenge

[2]     From:   Claude Caspar <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 12 Jun 2003 17:46:14 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1177 Great Statistical vs Human Sonnet 146 Crux
Challenge

[3]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 12 Jun 2003 19:03:06 -0300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1177 Great Statistical vs Human Sonnet 146 Crux
Challenge


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 12 Jun 2003 16:50:37 -0400
Subject: 14.1177 Great Statistical vs Human Sonnet 146 Crux
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1177 Great Statistical vs Human Sonnet 146 Crux
Challenge

Claude Caspar wrote:

>Poker, I play table-stakes & Texas Holdem, Bennett
>notwithstanding, is still not beatable [consistently] by computer IF,
>but ONLY if, the rules allow the irrational- one can bet anything at
>anytime, something a computer doesn't compute. The computer can only
>play the odds, like a beady-eyed actuary.  Bluffing can't be programmed
>spontaneously, only by premeditation.

Are you saying that a computer can win at limit but not no limit games?

I have never known a successful player to bluff irrationally (at least
not very often).  Bluffing, like nondeceptive play, follows certain
patterns.  Can you not program a computer, for example, to sometimes
steal antes and blinds in late position?  In stud, when the computer has
a losing hand on the river but four to a flush or straight showing
cannot it be programmed to bet and raise if the pot odds justify it?

But what implications does any of this have for Shakespeare studies?

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Claude Caspar <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 12 Jun 2003 17:46:14 -0400
Subject: 14.1177 Great Statistical vs Human Sonnet 146 Crux
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1177 Great Statistical vs Human Sonnet 146 Crux
Challenge

>I have never known a successful player to bluff irrationally (at least not
>very often).  Bluffing, like nondeceptive play, follows certain patterns.

On the one hand, mathematically, it is not easy to even program a
routine to generate a random number- some claim it is impossible in the
absolute sense.

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/probability.shtml

I used term bluff in the broadest sense, but even in the strictest sense
you propose, I don't see how it can ever be rational as long as so much
is unknown.  The real advantage of professionals is their deep pockets &
discipline- amateurs can't afford to loose.  All you need to do to
rattle a civilian is keep raising the stakes.  The skill is in knowing
yourself, placing the best bet & reading your table.  Money management
is more important than skill, even.  I play with professional gamblers
often & my experience is that the less they premeditate the better they
play.

Since we won't play I will tell you a secret, my secret.  I tend to blot
out the table, knowing that odds are not a factor.  Yes, over the years,
infinite years, reality will approximate the odds, but is never
obligated to conform to theory.  The real world has rough edges that
skew theoretical assessments.  There is no certainty, a discovery of
modern physics.  So, I play against myself!  The advantage is knowing my
odds, my nature- this immunizes me against all ploys.  Now, I am not
oblivious to my surroundings, but just as I play my ticks to the crowd,
know I am being played, too.  Shakespeare is a master of such play
within a play, mirror upon mirror.

It would be unfair to say that my retirement 25 years ago proves
anything-it may be just luck.  In fact, upon reconsidering, you are
welcome in any game I am in... I know more about your preconceptions
than you known mine!

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 12 Jun 2003 19:03:06 -0300
Subject: 14.1177 Great Statistical vs Human Sonnet 146 Crux
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1177 Great Statistical vs Human Sonnet 146 Crux
Challenge

Claude Caspar claims that

>Chess is dead, a victim of the cpu. The moment Shakespeare can be
>understood by a computer he will no longer be important to us. I am a
>life-long chess player, who can play in my head, sharked in college.
>But, a $100 handheld can now defeat just about everyone but a hand few
>in the world, consistently.

I'm not sure that I understand this.  Most human competitors in most
sports can be defeated by a machine, and in many cases by an animal as
well.  No one can outrun a rocket any more than they can outrun a
cheetah, but we still watch the olympic games.

Cheers,
Sean.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.