From: joltman@raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Mutual annihilation
Date: 27 Jan 1993 15:07:37 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu

In article <1993Jan22.221042.21336@ads.com>, btrusso@ADS.COM (Brad Trusso) writes:
|> From: joltman@raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
|> > The question is NOT "does the threat work."  According to that mentality,
|> > if you make one move that gives you a good recruit only on a roll of "4"
|> > as opposed to an alternate move that gives you a good recruit on any roll
|> > except a "4" and you roll a "4" next move, then you made the right choice.
|> 
|> You are right when the outcome is determined solely by chance.  In your
|> case, you can mathematically prove that the second move maximizes your
|> chances.  The first move worked by pure dumb luck, not skill (unless
|> you want to consider precognition  8^).
|> 
|> I was talking about interaction between people, with chance only a
|> side issue.  Player A is about to attack B.  B tries to persuade A
|> to do something else.  B succeeds in the short run solely by
|> convincing A to do something else.  B fails in the short run when A 
|> attacks anyway.  The luck of the die only determines the extent of A's 
|> damage during the attack, and of B's damage during the revenge.  Also, 
|> B succeeds in the long run when his/her established reputation convinces 
|> A (or others) to do something else the next time.  And B fails in the 
|> longer run when his/her opponents finally adopt a "no blackmail" policy.
|> At least B gained something in the mean time.  (8^)  And if the response
|> to the very first threat is "I will not be blackmailed", then B can
|> graciously withdraw the threat without losing a thing.  You can't
|> blame a guy for trying!  (8^)

If you know how the guy will react to your threat (whether he will back down
or not) then the question is academic.  If you don't, then it's a toss-up, a
die roll, etc.  Both players can make an educated guess based on statistically
average dice rolling to estimate the results of an action (attack, etc.) to
help determine the risk involved in a certain decision.

|> > If you're in a tournament (or playing a game in a tournament mentality), you
|> > should forget about the threat unless it will be to the person's advantage to
|> > follow through with it.
|> 
|> That's an interesting statement.  A "no blackmail" policy means that you
|> "forget about the threat", regardless of the result of following through.  
|> If following through is actually to their advantage even now (and not
|> just possibly in the long run), the "threat" is really "advice":  
|> "Go ahead and attack, if you think that's your best move.  Then my
|> best move will be to (...) because (...).  Maybe you should reconsider
|> whether that would be your best move."  This is perfectly consistent
|> with everyone playing to win, or place as high as possible.
|> 
|> If you want to have a "just play the situation on the board" game,
|> with no verbal interaction, that's fine.  Actually, my favorite game 
|> is Go, which is just that kind of game.  (It's purely a game of skill 
|> on the board, like Chess.)  I'm just saying that the interplay of
|> threats and counter-threats can also be fun, if you approach them
|> in the right spirit.
|> 
|> - Brad Trusso

That's the type of mentality I like to see played as a rule.  Since there is
no real "perfect knowledge" in Titan, statistical estimations are substituted.
A very good point that the "threat" is really "advice."  I guess to the player
who realizes what is the best play to make, it's advice...and to the player who
doesn't realize what the effects of the different decisions are, it would seem
more like a threat.

Perhaps a "threat" should be viewed as a warning to another player(s) that you
intend to act irrationally or not-in-your-own-best-intrest if a certain event
takes place (or fails to take place).  i.e. "I'm pissed because I'm probably
not going to win this game so I'm going to try to ruin its integrity unless
some of you help me out and get me back into it."  In this context, all "threats"
should be ignored in a "no blackmail" type policy.  If the person knows that
his threats will be ignored, then he should quit making them (unless he's not
playing to win or to do well) since threats are illogical and hurt his game.

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