Thread

1. hnedeotes · 1790969271 · focus · HN ↗

   I think that what makes these games beatable repeatedly is that they&#x27;re static. Not saying an algorithm properly trained won&#x27;t play better than the average player a game like MtG, or my own <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;aethersummon.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;aethersummon.com (specially now while it has under 90 possible scrolls only) but if you have a regular release cadence (say weekly or bi-weekly) of relevant new &quot;cards&quot;, then I think the playing field is much more even for humans.

   Those new additions can invalidate the whole training data by a single new &quot;card&quot; that changes completely the dynamics and would be easy for a player to understand and incorporate but not for an algorithm (perhaps with enough compute to re-train it regularly it could) - that along with the decision trees being orders of magnitude deeper, wider and with more conditionalities than go, chess or stratego - even through the same turn with the same cards available and same table state - would probably pose much harder problems for a compute bound algo.

   1. Arainach · 1790970570 · focus · HN ↗

      &gt; Those new additions can invalidate the whole training data by a single new &quot;card&quot; that changes completely the dynamics

      This doesn&#x27;t follow. You&#x27;re basically proposing that new combo decks be added all the time, and it&#x27;s far simpler for an agent to scan the new cards for potential interactions with the thousands of other cards in circulation than for a human to remember all of them.

      Your analogy is akin to saying that all you have to do is keep landing new code all the time, and since the agents weren&#x27;t trained on the code they won&#x27;t be able to identify and respond to security vulnerabilities in it as fast as humans, which hasn&#x27;t turned out to be correct

      1. [deleted] · 1790972552 · focus · HN ↗

         [deleted]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.