Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!drillsys!gatech!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.startrek,net.math,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is it logical to make random decisions?
Message-ID: <2014@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 23-Mar-86 05:06:46 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.2014
Posted: Sun Mar 23 05:06:46 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 03:27:26 EST
References: <1661@mtgzz.UUCP> <24900128@uiucdcs> <4571MIQ@PSUVMA> <2293@jhunix.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL)
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath net.startrek:5103 net.math:2996 net.philosophy:4641

> >>> 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?)
> The point is that randomly does NOT mean "without logic", that in fact 
> the most logical move can be a random decision.  I am cross-posting this to
> net.math to see if any game theorists can confirm this...  (can you?)

Yes, logical play in a two-player, zero-sum, discrete, finite,
perfect-information, non-cooperative* game in general actually
REQUIRES the use of a device for making a weighted random choice
among several alternative pure strategies.  A good, although
rather dated, elementary introduction to this subject can be
found in "The Compleat Strategist", written long ago by someone
(whose name I have unfortunately forgotten) from the Rand Corp.

* I wonder if I included enough qualifiers.