From: joltman@raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Winning isn't everything
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:29:30 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu

In article <19545@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Harper@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Harper) writes:
>I agree with most of this posting - if A attacks C, and C responds by
>fighting A rather than attacking B (which would help A), A can hardly
>complain.

I also agree that one whould expect revenge in a multiplayer game.  My opinion
on this is that it is to player C's disadvantage to attack A rather than B if
attacking B would give him a better chance of winning.  However, player A made
the first mistake.  He probably should not have attacked C if he thought that
player C would be capable of fighting back or seeking revenge.  How about this
for an analogy.  Suppose A, B, and C are countries who all border each other.
Suppose B is leading the game because of its superior technology and A is
second and C is thirthird.  Also, suppose C gets a lot of it's weaponry from
B.  Now A attacks C because C let his guard down and is C now crippled.  C's
only chance (very remote) is to somehow conquer B and use it's superior
technology to fight A.  This chance is slim so C chooses toget revenge on A
instead and make sure that he loses to B.  C is just hurting himself because
he is just giving away all hope of winning.  The moral of the story is that A
should not have attacked C unless he knew that C would not be able to hurt him
later on.  He should have let the sleeping lion lie and wait until he had a
better opportunity to whack C (or B).  We'll say that B had a strong border
vs. A and that C had a weak border vs. A, by the way, and that's why A didn't
attack B.

In summary, I believe that players should play all games as tournaments
where there is only one winner (no 2nd place).  By this I mean that players
should do everything possible to win THAT game without any regard for future
games.  They should use their own judgement to decide whether one of their
opponents will seek revenge rather than try to win, if "injured."  [Someone
used the analogy of a titan vs. titan battle in Titan.  One should not be
surprised if his opponent attempts to strip his attacker's stack if he deems
his chances of winning to be too low (as oppposed to going for the throat and
the remote chance of winning while hopelessly exposing himself).]  I believe
threats that involve future action in that game are o.k., but not threats for
future games.  If you're ever in a tournament, you won't have this option.

If your playing circle plays all the time and people start using threats that
carry over from one game (or from real life) to another game, the game will no
longer be a measure of individual skill and will start gravitating more toward
team skill.  Two players will invariably try to screw each other at every turn
and things will get out of hand.  If this is not what you want, you are inter-
ested in determining who is the best individual in a multi-player game (as I
am, but others may not be -- in which case all of this means nothing to you),
then you need to curb such activity by punishing players who make or carry out
such threats (by picking on them or excluding them from play until they decide
to change their ways or find a new group).

In the case where a threat is made BEFORE an action is to be carried out, here
is my opinion:

If someone says "Do this or I'll take us both down", all you can do is (if you
don't know the player well enough to know what he will do) base your decision
on what his (and your) options are.  You need to evaluate what he can do to
you, the cost of that action to himself, what you stand to lose for following
his orders, and what he stands to lose if you don't follow the orders.  If your
failure to follow his orders means that he's dogmeat (or he is already dogmeat)
and still has the power to hurt you, you better listen to him, unless your fate
for following his orders is worse.  If he's just tring to push you around and
your failure to follow his orders doesn't really hurt his position (and he is
not already dogmeat), then do as you please and let him decide whether he
wants to ruin his position by suiciding on you.  If he does, he's stupid and
you're just the unlucky victim and you shouldn't play with a moron like that
(assuming this action bothers you).  We're almost wading into prisoner's
dilemma territory here, but not quite.  In any case you need to use your own
judgment of your adversary's intelligence to make a final decision.


================================================================
=             T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)              =
=                                                              =
= This user does not believe in smiley faces.  Insert your own =
================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.board