Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Closely on topic but could you imagine if Chess was relegated to IGOUGO? Man that'd be hilariously awful.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Closely on topic but could you imagine if Chess was relegated to IGOUGO? Man that'd be hilariously awful.

What do you think the first turn win-rate in Chess would be if White moved as many pieces as it wanted to first and then handed the board over to black? My guess is greater than 90% as you could set an unassailable position and force black to play into kill zones and take terrible trades to develop their pieces.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Thats debatable considering two sources were released at the same time with different unit sizes and historically razorwings have been 1-12.

Given that one source was for PL only I don't think there's much debate to be had.

And even if it's illegal, that doesnt invalidate the whole list, its not like these 36 points singlehandedly won him the game.

It's not the points or their killing power that matters. If you force those 36 points into a single unit it likely changes the entire gameplan as he now needs to position a more valuable unit to score that same table quarter or out-of-the-way objective. If the 3 model minimum size is enforced I doubt we see this list ever again.

Yeah i know what it changes. But why do you randomly decide to ignore the PL document? PL is used in many rules in matched play, namely strategic reserves and stratagems. If you decide to ignore the unit size in that document, then you should ignore the PL updates too.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Yeah i know what it changes. But why do you randomly decide to ignore the PL document? PL is used in many rules in matched play, namely strategic reserves and stratagems. If you decide to ignore the unit size in that document, then you should ignore the PL updates too.

Feel free to point out any tournament top-8 uses of these rules that have been impacted by PL updates. I can't imagine there are any but I'm open to being surprised.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Yeah i know what it changes. But why do you randomly decide to ignore the PL document? PL is used in many rules in matched play, namely strategic reserves and stratagems. If you decide to ignore the unit size in that document, then you should ignore the PL updates too.

Feel free to point out any tournament top-8 uses of these rules that have been impacted by PL updates. I can't imagine there are any but I'm open to being surprised.

Anything that uses strategic reserves.....

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The answer lies within the complexity and computing power required to make such an AI. Tic-tac-toe is so easy a child can solve it, Connect 4 is more difficult but still solvable with highschool level math, Chess is a step above that requiring either a carefully curated move library and carefully programmed tactics or an early model self-learning AI, Go is a step above that requiring a modern cutting edge AI to play well. I would argue that 40k is closer to Chess level and that MtG is probably slightly above Go level but without any such AI existing I admit that I may well be missing a factor that makes things simpler or more complex for an AI in either of these games.

There are two distinct things imho : how difficult it is to model a game for a computer to "play" it and evaluate the results of its actions and how long it takes to train said computer. The first thing isn't related to the "complexity" of the game (GO is easy to model, hard to play, which is probably why Deepmind started with Go instead of Starcraft for example) while the second probably is.
But I don't think either of us has the information regarding which game is easier to model and train an AI for, and while it's fun and interesting to talk about, it is complete conjecture for us.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Chess is a finite game and thus there should be no uncertainty as to it being solvable, the question is how much computational power (or time) is required to brute force a solution and then how much more power is needed to brute force it within the time allotted for a sanctioned game. In either case, it is a question of hardware and not a logical issue.

Which is what I meant, afaik we don't know if we will ever reach a state in which we will have enough practical computational power at our disposal (because in theory, such power is limitless, but there are very practical limitations to it) available to "solve" chess.