In Chess, part of the experience resides in the strategic conflict between the players whom operate at a highly abstracted level, creating a context for this intellectual contest. Part of the technique of game design is making strategic decisions; each move is a decision which does not necessarily leave room for the player to guess.
And of course, human factors can have an impact on the outcome of the game, regardless of the position. It is interesting that more recent games of military strategy, such as Risk, and its computer relatives such as Age of Empires and Civilization, utilize an asymmetrical structure in which all players do not start with equal assets. This technique can tend to enhance the drama of the competition, as well as well as the increase of potential variations.
In conclusion, the Game Theory opened the door for new applications to games such as chess. Advances in technology and changes in human behavior, based on these new realities, are moving human intelligence into other dimensions.
The game of chess can help enhance the thinking process. In the game, it is one person in front of another, no technology, but, man against man, and the organ behind the game — the brain.
I can see how benefits can be reaped from this type of interaction, we need only look a little closer to see how it has helped many people during their developmental years. I will often use games played by the children themselves: children find it easier to relate to or take an interest in games played by themselves or their friends.
Richard James is a professional chess teacher and writer living in Twickenham, and working mostly with younger children and beginners. He was the co-founder of Richmond Junior Chess Club in and its director until He is the webmaster of chessKIDS academy www. Richard is a published author and his books can be found at Amazon. Richard is currently promoting minichess games and puzzles using subsets of chess for younger children through his website www.
View all posts by Richard James. Real life consists of bluffing, of little tactics of deception, of asking yourself what is the other man going to think I mean to do. And that is what games are about in my theory. Game theory is hard to apply to chess as it assumes perfect play by both sides see John von Neumann's theory of poker, where if your opponent acts like a fool his theory gets shot down.
Furthermore, when we see pieces crowding around our castled position, we rush to defend it and may not make the best move which might be a6 or something surprising. Game theory fails to take this into account.
Another thing is that, if we were to choose between a familiar tactical motif like a fork that wins a pawn and a mass of random complications that might win two, we would choose the safe route, which is not what game theory wants you to do.
If I set up my laptop on Chess Titans level 10 vs another laptop of Chess Titans level 10 - it would be a battle of math. Two people vs each other it isn't so similar.
With two people you can bring in the ability to become artistic. I think that if the really good mathematicians applied themselves, they could apply themselves to creating an operating system to approaching chess, much like Newton invented calculus to explain some of his theoretical ideas. I bet it could be done. And it would probably be extremely helpful for those expert mathematicians that just happens to be a really good chess player. Those of us that cannot apply such a method would not be able to apply it, but the idea itself is interesting!
In game theory, the way sequential games are solved, which would include chess as it is a game of sequence rather than simultaneous play, you diagram a game tree which encompasses all your possible choices and all the possible choices for your opponent to respond to your choice and then all your possible responses to their choice and so on until you get to the end result which in chess would either be a win or a loss.
Then you use backward induction to find which choices you should make as your moves. Because of this any use of game theory in the opening or midgame is unrealistic. Game theory could, and perhaps even should, be used in simple endgame situations if for no other reason than to cause you to analyse the position a little more so you don't make an avoidable mistake that cost you the game. As for game theory itself, I've taken a university level course in it and it is really not so terribly interesting as it seems on the surface.
It seemed to get a little dry over time. If your interested in improving at math and maybe want to learn a little about game theory as well I would advise you to study microeconomics. You could pick up a college level intermediate microeconomics textbook which will have some calculus based problems for you to do and most micro text have a few chapters on game theory so you could learn the basics of it without getting into the dryer aspects of it.
Current grandmasters consider the last option to be true. If white and black play the perfect game on both sides, the game will inevitably end in a draw. It is important to point out that, even the strongest chess engines, rated at least ELO points ahead than the top grandmaster, can only calculate moves ahead. The best chess engines also use previous game knowledge, and eliminate bad moves much faster, but one will observe even the computer after given half a minute, changes its mind on the best move possible in a given position.
Research from Stanford University by Qingyun Wu et al, demonstrates by using combinatorial game theory, how chess endgames can be mathematically evaluated, given which sides turn to play. In their analysis, games are divided into 5 categories. Pawn game endings are categorized, distances between pawns, closeness of Kings to pawns, and certain special positions are all considered in their work.
0コメント