Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[--Pete]

Hi,

International politics is not a game of chess, but since you bring up the analogy: . . .

No, but it is a 'game' in the game theoretical sense. So the analogy isn't half bad.

. . . you don't win chess by judging your opponent. That's poker. Chess is played by recognizing patterns on the board and knowing which outcome various moves will give in those patterns. It is *all* based on what is on the board, which, one could say, is the result of previous actions. So yes, it's about reacting to what already has been done.

Kandrathe didn't say that you played the opponent, he said " . . . you try to predict what the other player will do . . . ". And that is exactly what you have to do. Computers play chess in the manner you describe, assigning values to patterns, calculating the values for patterns resulting from different moves, min-maxing the resulting situations, working that down to the most profitable present move. Except for book openings and tablebase endings, that's basically how the better engines do it.

People don't play that way. They can't. They can't calculate the values for a position fast enough, they cannot calculate and remember the values for dozens of possible positions to compare them. People look for advantages, a general strategy, mobility, the ability to attack, control of the center (or of the flanks for the hyper-modern among us). We look for strategic advantages that can be turned into tactical opportunities. And we do this while trying to determine what the opponent is doing and how to defend against it, or even how to use his plans to his disadvantage.

But, in neither case does a computer or a person win by playing the past, by playing the position as it is. In both cases, to win, you have to play what will come, what is possible.

Nevermind me, though, for questioning your right to murder, torture or imprison anyone in the world who you claim would possibly do those same things, given enough time and/or resources :whistling:

Nice emotional outburst. Best example of open minded discussion I've seen in the last nanosecond.

I'd infinitely rather have intelligent opponents than stupid supporters. For the first sharpen my mind, but the second just make me look bad by association.

--Pete