DOCSLIB.ORG

Pythagorean Tic Tac Toe Copyright (C) 2018 (All Rights Reserved

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pythagorean Tic Tac Toe Copyright (C) 2018 (All Rights Reserved Pythagorean Tic Tac Toe Copyright (c) 2018 (All Rights Reserved) by Tony Berard Pythagorean Tic Tac Toe--The Complexity of a Thousand Universes in Each and Every Go Position. Introduction Pythagorean Tic Tac Toe is a new game built upon the old game of Tic Tac Toe. Each player gets 85 or 90 dice. One player is White, who always goes first, gets white dice. The other player is Black, who always goes second, gets black dice. We also have 70 Grey dice, which will be explained later. Pythagorean Tic Tac Toe is played on three boards--a 6x6 board, an 8x8 board, and a 10x10 board. It is a mathematical fact that 6x6 + 8x8 = 10x10. A 6-8-10 triple of numbers is known as a Pythagorean Triple. Thus, because of the similarity of the boards to this triple of numbers, the name Pythagorean Tic Tac Toe was chosen. The logo will be a 6-8-10 triangle with the sides of the triangle made into squares. Each of the squares will host a board of Tic Tac Toe of that size. There are infinitely many Pythagorean Triples. The 6-8-10 triple was chosen for several reasons and is the best choice as a result. It provides sufficient complexity for the game to make it the most complex game on the planet, and it is still small enough that the three boards are easy enough for people to understand. The Boneyards and Throwing Etiquette The Boneyard is a term borrowed from Dominoes, and it is the place to store White's dice, Black's dice, and the two areas to store the Grey dice. If some kind of dishes or bowls are used, we can still call them Boneyards. White's Boneyard is just out of play on White's side. Black's Boneyard is just out of play on Black's side. And the two Grey Boneyards holding 35 grey dice each at the outset of the game are on the left and right sides of the three boards just out of play. Each player has a rolling cup to remove hand throwing as a skill over the chance element intended by the use of dice. Place the dice in the throwing cup and cap it. Then, shake it for at least three seconds. Your opponent can demand that you shake it for at least three seconds if it seems less than this. Disputes on this can be determined with a stop watch. Finally, pour out the dice onto an empty area of your Boneyard (or on the bare table if dishes are used to hold the dice). Record on the scoresheet what your throw was in terms of how many 1's, 2's, 3's, etc. you got. The time clocks will have a delay of one minute to give you time to make your throw and record it. The Power of the Dice and Forming Chains The numbers 1, 2, and 3 are "weak" in this game. The numbers 4, 5, and 6 are "strong." The goal of the game is to form chains the full length of the board. Thus, the 6x6 board requires a chain of length 6. As the dice are loaded onto the boards, the goal is to try to form a chain on that board. On the 6x6 board, there are 14 ways to form a chain--6 vertical, 6 horizontal, and 2 diagonal. On the 8x8 board, there are 18 ways to form a chain--8 vertical, 8 horizontal, and 2 diagonal. On the 10x10, there are 22 ways to form a chain--10 vertical, 10 horizontal, and 2 diagonal. A chain is formed when a player has filled up a row, column or main diagonal of a board with either his own or Grey dice. A chain with even one weak die in it is a weak chain because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Thus, a chain with only strong dice in it (i.e. strong links) is a strong chain. To win on a board requires one strong chain or two weak chains. Placing the Dice On White's first turn, he or she tosses six dice. One must be placed on the 6x6 board, two must be placed on the 8x8 board, and 3 must be placed on the 10x10 board. After that, each player will throw 12 dice per turn, and three go on the small 6x6 board, four go on the medium 8x8 board, and five go on the big 10x10 board. The dice may be placed upon the boards following a few simple rules. Of course, a die may be placed on any empty square. But, you can also displace dice already there--either the opponent's dice or your own. There are two methods of displacing dice. The first method is the normal method. With this method you can replace a weak opposing die with anything of higher value. Thus, an opposing 1 can be replaced by a 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. An opposing 2 can be replaced by a 3, 4, 5, or 6. And, an opposing 3 can be replaced by a 4, 5, or 6. If you replace an opponent's weak die with this method, it is called a "Claim." If you replace your own die with this method, it is called an "Upgrade." Upgrades, though, have no restrictions at all. You may Upgrade any die belonging to you with anything of higher value on your roll--even strong dice. The other way to replace a die is through the tossing of a four of a kind. If you get four of a kind, you can optionally replace one of them with its equivalent with a Grey Die (or, as we like to say more simply, a Grey). You don't have to replace like this with a Grey Die because it is optional. But, if you do, this Grey Die can displace an opposing die of equal value or less. Thus, a Grey 1 can displace an opposing 1. A Grey 2 can displace an opposing 1 or 2. A Grey 3 can displace an opposing 1, 2, or 3. A Grey 4 can displace an opposing 1, 2, 3, or 4. A Grey 5 can displace an opposing 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. And, a Grey 6 can displace any opposing die--even a six. Note that it is not allowed that a Grey Die displace a player's own die. A Grey Die may only displace an opposing die. The strength of a Grey die in a chain must also be accounted for as well as the strength of the player's own dice. Note, for example, that a chain with all strong dice and a Grey 3 is a weak chain. The Greys are Weak and Strong, Too (Overrides) [Greys in this game set are the Brown Dice] A Grey 1, 2, or 3 is weak and may be Overridden by either player with a 4 or higher (a strong die). More specifically, a Grey 1 can be Overridden by a 2 or higher. A Grey 2 can be Overridden by a 3 or higher. Any strong die can Override a Grey 3. However, a Grey 4, 5, or 6 is strong. No reason exists to strengthen a strong Grey Die to a higher strong Grey, so a Strong Grey stands as immutable and inviolate. Thus, a Grey 4, 5, or 6 is the highest and therefore strongest piece on the board since nothing can change it. By comparison, a Black or White 6 can be changed into a Grey 6 by a player rolling four 6's. Thus, a strong Grey (4, 5, or 6) is our chess queen even though it doesn't move. So, we have Claims, Upgrades, and Overrides as our mechanisms to change the colors or values of the dice on the boards as game play progresses. Claims are when you displace an opposing weak die with your own higher valued die on a roll. Upgrades are when you increase the value of your own dice with a higher valued die on your roll, and Upgrading can be done on weak or strong dice of your own color. And, Overrides are when you displace a weak Grey Die with a higher valued die of your own on your roll. A strong Grey Die cannot be Overridden. And, a Claim may not be made on a strong opposing die. Finishing a Board When a board is full with no strong chains and neither player having two weak chains as well, that board is a Cat or a draw. No more dice may be placed on that board, but each player still throws 12 dice each time, but will only use the correct allotment of dice to use on each of the remaining boards in play. For example, suppose the small and large boards are still in play. Then, a player will only use 8 of the 12 dice thrown to put on the boards--three dice to be placed on the small board and five dice to be placed on the large board. When a player gets a strong chain or two weak chains, that board is not available for further play. So, a Win finishes a board. Play stops when all three boards are Finished and become unavailable for further play. Scoring We split up a point using decimals for scoring in this game. The small board offers 0.2 points.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parity Games: Descriptive Complexity and Algorithms for New Solvers
    Imperial College London Department of Computing Parity Games: Descriptive Complexity and Algorithms for New Solvers Huan-Pu Kuo 2013 Supervised by Prof Michael Huth, and Dr Nir Piterman Submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computing of Imperial College London and the Diploma of Imperial College London 1 Declaration I herewith certify that all material in this dissertation which is not my own work has been duly acknowledged. Selected results from this dissertation have been disseminated in scientific publications detailed in Chapter 1.4. Huan-Pu Kuo 2 Copyright Declaration The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives licence. Researchers are free to copy, distribute or transmit the thesis on the condition that they attribute it, that they do not use it for commercial purposes and that they do not alter, transform or build upon it. For any reuse or redistribution, researchers must make clear to others the licence terms of this work. 3 Abstract Parity games are 2-person, 0-sum, graph-based, and determined games that form an important foundational concept in formal methods (see e.g., [Zie98]), and their exact computational complexity has been an open prob- lem for over twenty years now. In this thesis, we study algorithms that solve parity games in that they determine which nodes are won by which player, and where such decisions are supported with winning strategies. We modify and so improve a known algorithm but also propose new algorithmic approaches to solving parity games and to understanding their descriptive complexity.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Board Game Rules from an Instruction Manual Chad Mills A
    Learning Board Game Rules from an Instruction Manual Chad Mills A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science University of Washington 2013 Committee: Gina-Anne Levow Fei Xia Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Linguistics – Computational Linguistics ©Copyright 2013 Chad Mills University of Washington Abstract Learning Board Game Rules from an Instruction Manual Chad Mills Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Gina-Anne Levow Department of Linguistics Board game rulebooks offer a convenient scenario for extracting a systematic logical structure from a passage of text since the mechanisms by which board game pieces interact must be fully specified in the rulebook and outside world knowledge is irrelevant to gameplay. A representation was proposed for representing a game’s rules with a tree structure of logically-connected rules, and this problem was shown to be one of a generalized class of problems in mapping text to a hierarchical, logical structure. Then a keyword-based entity- and relation-extraction system was proposed for mapping rulebook text into the corresponding logical representation, which achieved an f-measure of 11% with a high recall but very low precision, due in part to many statements in the rulebook offering strategic advice or elaboration and causing spurious rules to be proposed based on keyword matches. The keyword-based approach was compared to a machine learning approach, and the former dominated with nearly twenty times better precision at the same level of recall. This was due to the large number of rule classes to extract and the relatively small data set given this is a new problem area and all data had to be manually annotated.
    [Show full text]
  • Complexity in Simulation Gaming
    Complexity in Simulation Gaming Marcin Wardaszko Kozminski University [email protected] ABSTRACT The paper offers another look at the complexity in simulation game design and implementation. Although, the topic is not new or undiscovered the growing volatility of socio-economic environments and changes to the way we design simulation games nowadays call for better research and design methods. The aim of this article is to look into the current state of understanding complexity in simulation gaming and put it in the context of learning with and through complexity. Nature and understanding of complexity is both field specific and interdisciplinary at the same time. Analyzing understanding and role of complexity in different fields associated with simulation game design and implementation. Thoughtful theoretical analysis has been applied in order to deconstruct the complexity theory and reconstruct it further as higher order models. This paper offers an interdisciplinary look at the role and place of complexity from two perspectives. The first perspective is knowledge building and dissemination about complexity in simulation gaming. Second, perspective is the role the complexity plays in building and implementation of the simulation gaming as a design process. In the last section, the author offers a new look at the complexity of the simulation game itself and perceived complexity from the player perspective. INTRODUCTION Complexity in simulation gaming is not a new or undiscussed subject, but there is still a lot to discuss when it comes to the role and place of complexity in simulation gaming. In recent years, there has been a big number of publications targeting this problem from different perspectives and backgrounds, thus contributing to the matter in many valuable ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Game Complexity Vs Strategic Depth
    Game Complexity vs Strategic Depth Matthew Stephenson, Diego Perez-Liebana, Mark Nelson, Ahmed Khalifa, and Alexander Zook The notion of complexity and strategic depth within games has been a long- debated topic with many unanswered questions. How exactly do you measure the complexity of a game? How do you quantify its strategic depth objectively? This seminar answered neither of these questions but instead presents the opinion that these properties are, for the most part, subjective to the human or agent that is playing them. What is complex or deep for one player may be simple or shallow for another. Despite this, determining generally applicable measures for estimating the complexity and depth of a given game (either independently or comparatively), relative to the abilities of a given player or player type, can provide several benefits for game designers and researchers. There are multiple possible ways of measuring the complexity or depth of a game, each of which is likely to give a different outcome. Lantz et al. propose that strategic depth is an objective, measurable property of a game, and that games with a large amount of strategic depth continually produce challenging problems even after many hours of play [1]. Snakes and ladders can be described as having no strategic depth, due to the fact that each player's choices (or lack thereof) have no impact on the game's outcome. Other similar (albeit subjective) evaluations are also possible for some games when comparing relative depth, such as comparing Tic-Tac-Toe against StarCraft. However, these comparative decisions are not always obvious and are often biased by personal preference.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimax AI Within Non-Deterministic Environments
    Minimax AI within Non-Deterministic Environments by Joe Dan Davenport, B.S. A Thesis In Computer Science Submitted to the Graduate Faculty Of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for The Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved Dr. Nelson J. Rushton Committee Chair Dr. Richard Watson Dr. Yuanlin Zhang Mark Sheridan, Ph.D. Dean of the Graduate School August, 2016 Copyright 2016, Joe Dan Davenport Texas Tech University, Joe Dan Davenport, August 2016 Acknowledgements There are a number of people who I owe my sincerest thanks for arriving at this point in my academic career: First and foremost I wish to thank God, without whom many doors that were opened to me would have remained closed. Dr. Nelson Rushton for his guidance both as a scientist and as a person, but even more so for believing in me enough to allow me to pursue my Master’s Degree when my grades didn’t represent that I should. I would also like to thank Dr. Richard Watson who originally enabled me to come to Texas Tech University and guided my path. I would also like to thank Joshua Archer, and Bryant Nelson, not only for their companionship, but also for their patience and willingness to listen to my random thoughts; as well as my manger, Eric Hybner, for bearing with me through this. Finally I would like to thank some very important people in my life. To my Mother, I thank you for telling me I could be whatever I wanted to be, and meaning it. To Israel Perez for always being there for all of us.
    [Show full text]
  • How Game Complexity Affects the Playing Behavior of Synthetic Agents
    Kiourt, C., Kalles, Dimitris and Kanellopoulos, P., (2017), How game complexity affects the playing behavior of synthetic agents, 15th European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, Evry, 14-15 December 2017 EUMAS 2017 How game complexity affects the playing behavior of synthetic agents Chairi Kiourt1, Dimitris Kalles1, and Panagiotis Kanellopoulos2 1School of Science and Technology, Hellenic Open University, Patras, Greece, chairik, [email protected] 2CTI Diophantus and University of Patras, Rion, Greece. [email protected] Abstract—Agent based simulation of social organizations, via of the game. In our investigation, we adopted the state-space the investigation of agents’ training and learning tactics and complexity approach, which is the most-known and widely strategies, has been inspired by the ability of humans to learn used [13]–[15]. from social environments which are rich in agents, interactions and partial or hidden information. Such richness is a source of The complexity of a large set of well-known games has complexity that an effective learner has to be able to navigate. been calculated [14], [15] at various levels, but their usability This paper focuses on the investigation of the impact of the envi- in multi-agent systems as regards the impact on the agents’ ronmental complexity on the game playing-and-learning behavior learning/playing progress is still a flourishing research field. of synthetic agents. We demonstrate our approach using two In this article, we study the game complexity impact on independent turn-based zero-sum games as the basis of forming social events which are characterized both by competition and the learning/training progress of synthetic agents, as well as cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • Cancer's Intelligence
    Int. Journ. of Unconventional Computing, Vol. 16, pp. 41–78 ©2020 Old City Publishing, Inc. Reprints available directly from the publisher Published by license under the OCP Science imprint, Photocopying permitted by license only a member of the Old City Publishing Group Cancer’s Intelligence J. JAMES FROST† BioMolecular Imaging, 3801 Canterbury Road, Ste. 914, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA; Phone +1-443-869-2267; E-mail: [email protected] Received: September 15, 2020. Accepted: September 25, 2020. Cancer is analyzed as an intelligent system of collaborating and computing cells. The limitations of the current regime of cancer research and treatment are addressed, and the resultant need for new paradigmatic thinking is pre- sented. Features of intelligence pervade the natural world from humans to animals of all sizes and complexity to microorganisms. Yet, cancer has hith- erto not been investigated as acting with intelligence as it evades the body’s and the oncologist’s failed attempts to eradicate it. In this analysis, concepts of computation, including self computation and the limits of computation; game playing; e-machine analysis; self-aware systems; P and NP-hard problems; and Boolean networks are addressed and related to features of cancer that can be described as intelligent. The implications of the devel- oped theory of cancer’s intelligence are discussed, together with several signposts and recommendations for new cancer research. Keywords: Cancer, intelligence, computation, game theory, Boolean network 1 INTRODUCTION The grim plight of cancer continues to endure in the face of legions of tar- geted drugs, reams of cancer gene data, and multitudes of physicists and mathematicians on the attack (1).
    [Show full text]
  • EVOLUTIONARY AI in BOARD GAMES an Evaluation of the Performance of an Evolutionary Algorithm in Two Perfect Information Board Games with Low Branching Factor
    EVOLUTIONARY AI IN BOARD GAMES An evaluation of the performance of an evolutionary algorithm in two perfect information board games with low branching factor Bachelor Degree Project in Informatics G2E, 22.5 credits, ECTS Spring term 2015 Viktor Öberg Supervisor: Joe Steinhauer Examiner: Anders Dahlbom Abstract It is well known that the branching factor of a computer based board game has an effect on how long a searching AI algorithm takes to search through the game tree of the game. Something that is not as known is that the branching factor may have an additional effect for certain types of AI algorithms. The aim of this work is to evaluate if the win rate of an evolutionary AI algorithm is affected by the branching factor of the board game it is applied to. To do that, an experiment is performed where an evolutionary algorithm known as “Genetic Minimax” is evaluated for the two low branching factor board games Othello and Gomoku (Gomoku is also known as 5 in a row). The performance here is defined as how many times the algorithm manages to win against another algorithm. The results from this experiment showed both some promising data, and some data which could not be as easily interpreted. For the game Othello the hypothesis about this particular evolutionary algorithm appears to be valid, while for the game Gomoku the results were somewhat inconclusive. For the game Othello the performance of the genetic minimax algorithm was comparable to the alpha-beta algorithm it played against up to and including depth 4 in the game tree.
    [Show full text]
  • Combinatorial Game Complexity: an Introduction with Poset Games
    Combinatorial Game Complexity: An Introduction with Poset Games Stephen A. Fenner∗ John Rogersy Abstract Poset games have been the object of mathematical study for over a century, but little has been written on the computational complexity of determining important properties of these games. In this introduction we develop the fundamentals of combinatorial game theory and focus for the most part on poset games, of which Nim is perhaps the best- known example. We present the complexity results known to date, some discovered very recently. 1 Introduction Combinatorial games have long been studied (see [5, 1], for example) but the record of results on the complexity of questions arising from these games is rather spotty. Our goal in this introduction is to present several results— some old, some new—addressing the complexity of the fundamental problem given an instance of a combinatorial game: Determine which player has a winning strategy. A secondary, related problem is Find a winning strategy for one or the other player, or just find a winning first move, if there is one. arXiv:1505.07416v2 [cs.CC] 24 Jun 2015 The former is a decision problem and the latter a search problem. In some cases, the search problem clearly reduces to the decision problem, i.e., having a solution for the decision problem provides a solution to the search problem. In other cases this is not at all clear, and it may depend on the class of games you are allowed to query. ∗University of South Carolina, Computer Science and Engineering Department. Tech- nical report number CSE-TR-2015-001.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shortest Path Game: Complexity and Algorithms Andreas Darmann, Ulrich Pferschy, Joachim Schauer
    The Shortest Path Game: Complexity and Algorithms Andreas Darmann, Ulrich Pferschy, Joachim Schauer To cite this version: Andreas Darmann, Ulrich Pferschy, Joachim Schauer. The Shortest Path Game: Complexity and Algorithms. 8th IFIP International Conference on Theoretical Computer Science (TCS), Sep 2014, Rome, Italy. pp.39-53, 10.1007/978-3-662-44602-7_4. hal-01402026 HAL Id: hal-01402026 https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01402026 Submitted on 24 Nov 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License The Shortest Path Game: Complexity and Algorithms ? Andreas Darmann1, Ulrich Pferschy2, and Joachim Schauer2 1 University of Graz, Institute of Public Economics, Universitaetsstr. 15, 8010 Graz, Austria, [email protected] 2 University of Graz, Department of Statistics and Operations Research, Universitaetsstr. 15, 8010 Graz, Austria, fpferschy, [email protected] Abstract. In this work we address a game theoretic variant of the short- est path problem, in which two decision makers (agents/players) move together along the edges of a graph from a given starting vertex to a given destination. The two players take turns in deciding in each vertex which edge to traverse next.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Algorithm for Generating Equilibria in Massive Zero-Sum Games
    A New Algorithm for Generating Equilibria in Massive Zero-Sum Games Martin Zinkevich Michael Bowling Neil Burch Department of Computing Science University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E8 Abstract Koller, Megiddo, & von Stengel 1994), which can require time cubic in the number of states. In summary, although In normal scenarios, computer scientists often consider the the size of the state space, branching factor, and informa- number of states in a game to capture the difficulty of learn- ing an equilibrium. However, players do not see games in tion properties are suggestive of difficulty they alone do not the same light: most consider Go or Chess to be more com- make a game challenging. However they are the sole factors plex than Monopoly. In this paper, we discuss a new measure in how solution techniques scale with the problem. of game complexity that links existing state-of-the-art algo- In this paper we suggest a new measure called the range rithms for computing approximate equilibria to a more hu- of skill, which may more accurately capture the human per- man measure. In particular, we consider the range of skill ception of game difficulty. Imagine forming a line of Go in a game, i.e.how many different skill levels exist. We then players where the player at the head of the line can beat ev- modify existing techniques to design a new algorithm to com- eryone else in the line at least 75% of the time. The second pute approximate equilibria whose performance can be cap- player can beat everyone behind her at least 75% of the time, tured by this new measure.
    [Show full text]
  • Dominance Solvability in Random Games
    Dominance Solvability in Random Games Noga Alon∗ Kirill Rudov† Leeat Yariv‡§ May 21, 2021 Abstract. We study the effectiveness of iterated elimination of strictly-dominated actions in random games. We show that dominance solvability of games is vanishingly small as the number of at least one player's actions grows. Furthermore, conditional on dominance solvability, the number of itera- tions required to converge to Nash equilibrium grows rapidly as action sets grow. Nonetheless, when games are highly im- balanced, iterated elimination simplifies the game substan- tially by ruling out a sizable fraction of actions. Technically, we illustrate the usefulness of recent combinatorial methods for the analysis of general games. Keywords: Random Games, Dominance Solvability, Iterated Elimi- nation ∗Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, [email protected] †Department of Economics, Princeton University, [email protected] ‡Department of Economics, Princeton University, [email protected] §We thank Roland B´enabou, Amanda Friedenberg, Faruk Gul, Annie Liang, and Drew Fudenberg for useful feedback. We gratefully acknowledge support from NSF grant SES- 1629613. Dominance Solvability in Random Games 1 1. Introduction 1.1. Overview. First introduced by Moulin(1979) in the context of voting, dominance solvability relies on a straightforward prescription. If a player has an action that generates worse payoffs than another regardless of what other players select|a strictly dominated action|she should never use it. When the structure of the game is commonly known, other players can infer their opponents' strictly dominated actions and assume they will not be played. With those strictly dominated actions eliminated, the resulting, reduced game may have further strictly dominated actions that can then be eliminated, and so on and so forth.
    [Show full text]