1. Re: AI- argument WAS: Computer version of Risk
> On Fri, 4 Jul 1997, Anders Eurenius wrote:
> > I responded to what I thought was a really hapless post, and posted a
> > computer science algorithm that I think is really nifty.
>
> It was nifty, wrong for this application IMHO, but nifty. I NEVER post
> about stuff I can't write a book about, NEVER hapless posts from me.
> Enthusiastic usually, caustic sometimes(!), hapless NEVER.
Yeah. I should come back after a few titles.
> > Michael (who, it turns out, is a pro)
> Like DUH! Everyone on here should know my "qualifications" by now. =)
> If you want to know, e-mail me or check out our web pages:
> http://exo.com/~lgp
> http://exo.com/~lgp/games
> http://exo.com/~lgp/euphoria
"DUH" what? A lot a stuff I don't know.
> > got ticked at my clueless book-voodoo, and then...
>
> Not ticked. You spewed that "book learnin'" at us... ick. I really wish
> some of those CIS instructors would tell their people that nobody in the real
CIS? CS?
> world actually "does it" that way. When I was in college, they expected
I can relate to that, but I'm one of those people who are sorry for the fast
(hardware) speed development. It has killed the craftsmanship...
(Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, <insert argument here>)
> everyone to program in pascal, which no one has used since the 70's. (except
> colleges and the military)
DUH!!! They forced it down our throats too! (An' yeah, we kicked an'
screamed...)
> > It's really about different philosophies than anything else.
> >
> > Packard is a pro, and doesn't really care about the algorithm, he wants
> > playability, the easiest way possible. And he should: If he'd do it my way,
> > his employers would be out of business because of the development time, and
> > it wouldn't really be that different...
>
> I never said anything one way or another about the algorithm, you
> questioned my RISK playing ability, which is completely irrelevant to the AI
> development.
It *shouldn't* be, but when you use it to make hardcoded instructions, it
immediately becomes very interesting since the prog get your (strategic)
mistakes in it!
> > I'm a computer science puke, so I'm really into trying to make it very
> > clever without any cheating (not disscussed yet) or *precalculation*. This
> > is a bit unnecessary, but it's my way of doing things... (Precalculation
> > does bring some of it's own demons to the party...)
> >
> > I want that -2% *execution* time, Packard doesn't want the +236%
> > *development* time that comes with it... ...And the universe is in
> > harmony...
> The primary problem is your way INCREASES the execution time by at
> least 100% AND increases your development time 500% AND isn't fun to play
> against.
Yeah. Stupid to mix those two examples...
<bonk!><bonk!><bonk!><bonk!><bonk!>
> Michael Packard
> Lord Generic Productions
^- -^
This might be what got me. Sounds like one or two kids.
> lgp at exo.com http://exo.com/~lgp
> A Crash Course in Game Design and Production
> http://exo.com/~lgp/euphoria
>
Anyway, I'll scope out the sites.
Anders
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Eurenius <c96aes at cs.umu.se> ICQ UIN:1453793
Computer Science/Engineering student at the university of Umeaa
-------------------------------------------------------------------
