Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Forum rules
This forum is limited to topics relating to the game Diplomacy only. Other posts or topics will be relocated to the correct forum category or deleted. Please be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.
This forum is limited to topics relating to the game Diplomacy only. Other posts or topics will be relocated to the correct forum category or deleted. Please be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
I do so enjoy a game of, "You don't know what you're talking about! No, YOU don't know what you're talking about!" In the interest of advancing this discussion, here is the wikipedia page for Nash Equilibrium:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
-
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:00 am
- Contact:
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
This is incorrect. You can literally google the correct definition. Or look at wikiepdia, yeah. You've pretty clearly only learned about nash equilibriums through the prisoner's dilemma or something.
The case of a 50/50 nash equilibrium is *literally* an archetypal example of a nash equilibrium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_pennies
Which is in the *second paragraph* of the nash equilibrium wikipedia page.
-
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:00 am
- Contact:
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
"the unique Nash equilibrium of this game is in mixed strategies: each player chooses heads or tails with equal probability.[2] In this way, each player makes the other indifferent between choosing heads or tails, so neither player has an incentive to try another strategy. "
How is it possible for someone to be so confident and so wrong?
How is it possible for someone to be so confident and so wrong?
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Quoting the Matching Pennies wikipedia article:Restitution wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:40 pmThe case of a 50/50 nash equilibrium is *literally* an archetypal example of a nash equilibrium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_pennies
"This game has no pure strategy Nash equilibrium since there is no pure strategy (heads or tails) that is a best response to a best response"
You are cute!
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Wait, are we just discussing the difference between pure strategy Nash equilibria and mixed strategy Nash equilibria!?
Oh, no! We're both pathetic!
Oh, no! We're both pathetic!
-
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:00 am
- Contact:
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
No, no, that's just you. I never claimed that pure strategy nash equilibriums didn't exist, you insisted that the example you gave of a coin flip wasn't a nash equilibrium at all and are backfilling your mistake as if you knew what a mixed strategy was all along.
Literally posted about how I'm cute before reading two sentences after the sentence you quoted. Pure sophistry.
Anyway, I'm done. You would look a lot better if you just admitted you made a mistake.
-
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:00 am
- Contact:
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Actually, I admitted I made a mistake. In my world, "Nash equilibrium" is "pure state Nash equilibrium," and "mixed state Nash equilibrium" is called "optimal strategy."
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Whichever AI went first would win every time (except for unique setups where whoever went second would win every time). Probability has no part in choosing moves in a game of Nim.
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:47 am
- Contact:
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Thank you for your help. I'm looking for something like that
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users