🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug13.182150.184@exu.ericsson.se> exuhag@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>Amit Jayant Patel writes:
>>
>>My understanding was that genetic algorithms would be done once, and they 
>>would tweak the values for you so that you don't have to guess.  You could
>>run the GA every night, and in a few weeks, you'd have such a good opponent
>>that it could beat any other possible opponent using those few simple rules.
>>(It wouldn't be done at run-time, so it wouldn't slow down the game...)
>
>...but you've got to do *something* at run-time, I would think :-)
>
>I don't think most people want to play against undefeatable opponents.
>They'd prefer oppponents with different styles, etc.  Remember, the
>computer can "see" everything perfectly (it can access internal data
>structures).  So the exactly what methods the computer is using to
>figure out its moves may not be obvious to a human player, making the
>computer player, at the very least, not completely predictable.

Certainly the computer can "see" all of the data.  I submit that the
programmer should not need to let the CCP "cheat."  The reason I say should
is because the economics of game production might require the programmer to
create a good opponent quickly, and cheating is a means to that end.

But for hoobyists, there is no requirement for cheating.  THere are
approaches that work.  If you can't include genetic algorithms, do
the darwinistic tweaking yourself.  


Neil Kirby