Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > Books and Publications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 10-02-2007, 12:28 PM
ShaneP ShaneP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 80
Default Re: HOH \"outdated\"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


This "complete information" idea is commonly bandied about. It's true in theory, but not in practice, at least among amateur players.



[/ QUOTE ]


Jeff, I've seen you make this claim a few times. In game theory terminology, chess is indeed a game of complete information, and poker is a game of incomplete information.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I said. I also am saying that in practice you don't make all your decisions based strictly on game theory. In many actual game situations in chess, you can knowingly make theoretically incorrect moves and still gain an advantage over a (non master) opponent. You obviously cannot do this in a game theory sense. The fact that chess is theoretically a game of complete information is irrelevant sometimes, yet people keep talking about it as if chess is a game played against perfect computers, not against people. Since their assumption is wrong, sometimes their conclusion is wrong.

In some ways, amateur chess in practice has more in common with poker, a game of incomplete information, than with a game of complete information. This is the point I'm trying to get across.

For example, in poker you might say "I'm not sure what my opponent has and he's not sure what I have, but based on his play I think he has something like ABC, and he probably thinks I have something like XYZ."

In chess you might say "I'm not sure what my opponent's up to here, but based on his last couple moves he's very worried about this threat, even though there is an easy defense to it that he's obviously not aware of. I will continue with this "bluff". I might be exposing myself here, but I'm not sure since I can only imagine a couple moves ahead, and furthermore I doubt he'd see that anway even if it is an exposure."

I'm trying clear up the misconception that just because a game is one of "complete information", you can't bluff and you can't outplay your opponent in many of the same ways you can in poker. If your opponent does not know how to use information or is not aware of it, then that information might as well not exist, making the game one of incomplete information in practice. And then the game plays more like a theoretical game of incomplete information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeff--

I do (and did) see your point, and I understand it. My only point is that you're messing up the terminology--the game itself is a game of complete information, and so to attach a tag of 'incomplete information' is misleading. What you're saying is that it is a game of complete information, but the equilibrium is very difficult (if not impossible in some situations to find) so that opponents can and do play non-equilibrium strategies. As such, you can play non-equilibrium strategies (your 'bluff') because that's a best response to your opponent's mistakes.

So the game is the game--it doesn't become incomplete information because of what or how some people play. If I were to sit down and play a game of Go, it would still be a game of complete information, even though I would play it terribly, and not even close to an equilibrium strategy. So my opponent might catch on and make 'mistakes' of his own to induce more mistakes from me, or even bluff (I don't know enough about Go to know if that's even possible...).

What I'm saying is that it is true in theory and practice in Go, Chess, Checkers, Tic-Tac-Toe, and whatever else, that the game is of complete information. To claim otherwise is either wrong, or as in your case, abusing the nomenclature. That's all I'm saying, and being a theorist in the field, I don't like seeing people abuse the notation...again, not saying your point is wrong, it's just that your wording is poor.

Shane
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-02-2007, 04:08 PM
OrangeKing OrangeKing is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 683
Default Re: HOH \"outdated\"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can make money with the ability level of a 1500 rating if your official rating is lower and you can get into the u1200 section at the World Open or other similar tournament. Even in chess, it's all about game selection if you're in it to maximize profits. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You win money at the World Open at low ratings? I didn't know that.

Anyway, basically you're saying you can win by cheating :-)

[/ QUOTE ]

At lot of major tournaments give rather sizable prizes for sections down to u1200 or even lower. I did win the u1200 in a situation like I proposed a few years ago, but actually without cheating; I got back into chess with a rating that was still the one I had when I was 8 years old, played in as many tournaments as I could, and got my rating up to 1175. Then that summer I found out about the $3,000 first prize for the u1200 section and signed up, and won it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I was probably legitimately around a 1400 player at the time, though to be honest, I wasn't even sure about that going into the tournament. I just knew I'd have a chance (and got very lucky in a few games to boot).

There are a lot of people who do go out of their way to sandbag for these tournaments though. With a first prize this year of $12k in the u1400 section and $7k in the u1100 section, it's not hard to see why.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-03-2007, 12:25 PM
jeffnc jeffnc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,631
Default Re: HOH \"outdated\"

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that it is true in theory and practice in Go, Chess, Checkers, Tic-Tac-Toe, and whatever else, that the game is of complete information. To claim otherwise is either wrong, or as in your case, abusing the nomenclature. That's all I'm saying, and being a theorist in the field, I don't like seeing people abuse the notation...again, not saying your point is wrong, it's just that your wording is poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

We constantly have to invent new wording to get new ideas across. Let me give you an example. If you were a "theorist in the field" of zoology, you'd know that balsa wood is a hardwood and pine is a softwood. But that's pretty misleading isn't it? So I would tell most people that balsa is a soft wood and you would correct me and say no, it must be a hardwood.

Yes, I know chess is a game of complete information. But in practice that's pretty misleading. In practice it's a game of incomplete information. This is no more wrong in my view than saying that balsa is a hardwood and balsa is a soft wood in practice.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-03-2007, 12:30 PM
jeffnc jeffnc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,631
Default Re: HOH \"outdated\"

[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of people who do go out of their way to sandbag for these tournaments though. With a first prize this year of $12k in the u1400 section and $7k in the u1100 section, it's not hard to see why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the difference between handicapped games like chess, bowling and golf and a non handicapped game like poker to be pretty interesting, especially since poker is played with money virtually always.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-03-2007, 02:21 PM
ShaneP ShaneP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 80
Default Re: HOH \"outdated\"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that it is true in theory and practice in Go, Chess, Checkers, Tic-Tac-Toe, and whatever else, that the game is of complete information. To claim otherwise is either wrong, or as in your case, abusing the nomenclature. That's all I'm saying, and being a theorist in the field, I don't like seeing people abuse the notation...again, not saying your point is wrong, it's just that your wording is poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

We constantly have to invent new wording to get new ideas across. Let me give you an example. If you were a "theorist in the field" of zoology, you'd know that balsa wood is a hardwood and pine is a softwood. But that's pretty misleading isn't it? So I would tell most people that balsa is a soft wood and you would correct me and say no, it must be a hardwood.

Yes, I know chess is a game of complete information. But in practice that's pretty misleading. In practice it's a game of incomplete information. This is no more wrong in my view than saying that balsa is a hardwood and balsa is a soft wood in practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, can't help myself...if I was a 'theorist in the field' of zoology, I wouldn't necessarily know anything about trees. Now, if I were a botanist...(sorry for the nit, but it kind of goes with my point). But it would be pretty easy to explain to someone confused about it that (I think..I'm not a botanist) hardwood versus softwood is an issue of rigidity, not of strength.

But the key thing is the definition of complete information isn't open to interpretation. Are there hidden chess pieces? Do the pieces move in a different way that isn't known to both participants? Complete information games are defined as having the state of the world/system known to all. Complete information versus Incomplete information just has to do with the rules of the game, it has nothing to do with how complex the game is, or if people are playing the Nash Equilibrium strategy.

Looking at it another way...would you say Tic-Tac-Toe is a game of complete information? (it is). But according to your 'definitions', it would become a game of incomplete information if I was playing an idiot. Or I could define a simple game of incomplete information where the participants easily identify and play the Nash Equlibrium, and evidentally this would make it (according to a slight extension of your definition) a game of complete information. This makes your definitions useless, since now you need to specify the complexity of the thinking of the participants.

If you want to use a new word, fine. But when you take an established word with a concrete meaning and use it for something else, you muddle up the interpretation and argument.

I'm guessing a bit of trying to get chess called a game of incomplete information is that you're trying to show poker is a game of skill. That is, chess is a game of skill, and then by calling chess a game of incomplete information, those games then can be games of skill and thus poker is. But what I would say is just because a game is a game of incomplete information, doesn't make it a game without skill. After all, there are games of complete information that are entirely games of chance (Chutes and Ladders for a prime example), so the categorization of Complete or Incomplete information doesn't (or shouldn't) determine whether a game is skill or luck.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10-03-2007, 03:04 PM
fraac fraac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 752
Default Re: HOH \"outdated\"

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, can't help myself...if I was a 'theorist in the field' of zoology, I wouldn't necessarily know anything about trees. Now, if I were a botanist...

[/ QUOTE ]
My ex-girlfriend, a theorist in the field of zoology, is fond of the fact that balsa is a hardwood and talks of it often. Also, apparently, whelks have the largest penis-to-body ratio of any animal. Point is, when you can see the other guy knows what he's talking about, as jeff does, then mere pedantry loses arguments.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-03-2007, 03:23 PM
ShaneP ShaneP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 80
Default Re: HOH \"outdated\"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, can't help myself...if I was a 'theorist in the field' of zoology, I wouldn't necessarily know anything about trees. Now, if I were a botanist...

[/ QUOTE ]
My ex-girlfriend, a theorist in the field of zoology, is fond of the fact that balsa is a hardwood and talks of it often. Also, apparently, whelks have the largest penis-to-body ratio of any animal. Point is, when you can see the other guy knows what he's talking about, as jeff does, then mere pedantry loses arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's fine...if you want to ignore the body of the argument and focus on what was more or less a joke, ok. But that wasn't the point at all. I could care less about hardwood versus softwood...I probably shouldn't have even said that, because (I know that was being a bit nittish) people would latch onto that rather than the actual argument...oh well, I was just trying to bring a slight amount of humor
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-03-2007, 03:46 PM
fraac fraac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 752
Default Re: HOH \"outdated\"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, can't help myself...if I was a 'theorist in the field' of zoology, I wouldn't necessarily know anything about trees. Now, if I were a botanist...

[/ QUOTE ]
My ex-girlfriend, a theorist in the field of zoology, is fond of the fact that balsa is a hardwood and talks of it often. Also, apparently, whelks have the largest penis-to-body ratio of any animal. Point is, when you can see the other guy knows what he's talking about, as jeff does, then mere pedantry loses arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's fine...if you want to ignore the body of the argument and focus on what was more or less a joke, ok. But that wasn't the point at all. I could care less about hardwood versus softwood...I probably shouldn't have even said that, because (I know that was being a bit nittish) people would latch onto that rather than the actual argument...oh well, I was just trying to bring a slight amount of humor

[/ QUOTE ]
The 'body' of your argument is that you like terms to be used precisely and to not shift in meaning (as all good language does) when no one here was confused anyway. You are arguing to an empty room. Jeff's point that the amount of information in chess increases with ability, and thus the best strategy not only changes but relies on a completely different underlying theory, has interesting implications. If you can find the link to curtains' turn in The Well, he hints at exploitative chess strategies being a new avenue for him. And he's a pro. So, it's interesting. No one was talking about whether poker is a game of skill, but if you must be precise then I suggest that exploitation takes more 'skill' than does the application of a theoretically 'optimal' strategy, and poker is more skillful than high-level chess. Which is, like your argument, pointless semantic marshland.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-03-2007, 04:09 PM
ShaneP ShaneP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 80
Default Re: HOH \"outdated\"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, can't help myself...if I was a 'theorist in the field' of zoology, I wouldn't necessarily know anything about trees. Now, if I were a botanist...

[/ QUOTE ]
My ex-girlfriend, a theorist in the field of zoology, is fond of the fact that balsa is a hardwood and talks of it often. Also, apparently, whelks have the largest penis-to-body ratio of any animal. Point is, when you can see the other guy knows what he's talking about, as jeff does, then mere pedantry loses arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's fine...if you want to ignore the body of the argument and focus on what was more or less a joke, ok. But that wasn't the point at all. I could care less about hardwood versus softwood...I probably shouldn't have even said that, because (I know that was being a bit nittish) people would latch onto that rather than the actual argument...oh well, I was just trying to bring a slight amount of humor

[/ QUOTE ]
The 'body' of your argument is that you like terms to be used precisely and to not shift in meaning (as all good language does) when no one here was confused anyway. You are arguing to an empty room. Jeff's point that the amount of information in chess increases with ability, and thus the best strategy not only changes but relies on a completely different underlying theory, has interesting implications. If you can find the link to curtains' turn in The Well, he hints at exploitative chess strategies being a new avenue for him. And he's a pro. So, it's interesting. No one was talking about whether poker is a game of skill, but if you must be precise then I suggest that exploitation takes more 'skill' than does the application of a theoretically 'optimal' strategy, and poker is more skillful than high-level chess. Which is, like your argument, pointless semantic marshland.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite an empty room; there have been replies. And I would say it's interesting a game of perfect information can have room for 'non-optimal' strategies being better than the optimal replies based on one's opponent.

But the argument jeff put forward, if your summary is correct, is wrong. There's more information if I'm good at chess? hardly. I can see the board, I can see the pieces, I know how they move. All the information is readily available to any participant. Pieces are not revealed to a GM when they remain hidden from someone of my chess ability. I think the only 'pointless marshland' is the place where people define words however they want, and use them to prove whatever it is they want.

Although, my guess is there's a mixing of information (the state) with the action space for a game. What my opponent is doing or thinking in no way influences the information in a game as far as calling it complete or incomplete. It is a part of the game, and it would influence my strategies, but calling it something it isn't defeats the purpose of defining what it is in the first place. A good language may have words shift meaning, but good science has concrete definitions that are not subject to the whims of the person uttering the words. And the phrase 'incomplete information' is and was being used in a scientific sense, quite incorrectly--and I've seen jeffnc use it in that way several times in previous threads...
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-03-2007, 04:14 PM
fraac fraac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 752
Default Re: HOH \"outdated\"

What term should he use instead?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.