Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uiucdcs
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan
From: mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.startrek
Subject: Re: Followup to 'His was the most human
Message-ID: <24900131@uiucdcs>
Date: Fri, 21-Mar-86 19:05:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.24900131
Posted: Fri Mar 21 19:05:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Mar-86 22:49:33 EST
References: <1661@mtgzz.UUCP>
Lines: 26
Nf-ID: #R:mtgzz.UUCP:1661:uiucdcs:24900131:000:1114
Nf-From: uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU!mcewan    Mar 21 18:05:00 1986


>>> A good way to confound a logical player is to make completely random
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> moves.  The logic involved in strategic game playing generally involves
>>  ^^^^^
>>> predicting the other player's moves; this is quite difficult if the
>>> other player is random.  Kirk's play was probably not random, but he
>>> probably guessed every now and then, which was enough to throw Spock's
>>> strategy off.
>     
>>
>> In other words, this is a LOGICAL way to play against such a player, right?
>     
>      You mean the logical thing to do is to play randomly, without logic?
> Isn't that a contradiction in terms?  (Where have I heard that before?)

Only because you are making the totally illogical assumption that playing
randomly is illogical. The idea is to win the game; if playing randomly
leads to victory, then it is logical to play randomly. "Random" is
not the opposite of "logical".

			Scott McEwan
			{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan

"I'm sorry, sir. According to your identification you're not even born
 yet. Come back in 500 years."