On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 12:10:10PM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:41:05PM -0800, Tom Holub wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 11:22:53PM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:
> > > Tom: Do you see the potential, even if you don't believe it would ever
> > > amount to anything in your life time?
> > I see that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.  If you
> > increase robot phaserlocking to be 100% accurate, ROBOTS WILL STILL SUCK AT
> > NETREK.  You're talking about the wrong problem.
> I see that you don't like me.

I don't even know you, but you keep posting idiocy and ignoring valid
points made by people who have enormously more experience with netrek
and netrek robots than you.

> I see Netrek as a very fine art, with a larger problem space, but not
> one beyond other games I have played. The "art" in this case, is not
> the ability to obtain Admiral in 48 hours. The "art" is the ability to
> formally define the strategies *on paper*, in a form that can be
> followed by another team if executed perfectly. A robot team does this
> very effectively.

No, it doesn't.  Aren't you listening?  netrek strategy is extremely hard
to formally define, in much the way that Go strategy is; it is a fluid
thing and extremely multivariate.  It's like trying to formally define
perfect basketball strategy.

> If it's all in your head, it is useless. So you get to be Netrek
> champion of the world... so what? Can you accurately explain what you
> do? Or do you just trust your mind to do the figuring for you?

Can Kobe Bryant explain when it's right to go for the layup, the
dunk, or the reverse layup?  You can make generalizations, but every
situation is specific, and unlike games like chess or football, the
starting position is virtually never known.

I don't always make the right decision, either--no one does.  But we
do a much better job than the best netrek robot does.

> Netrek is far different. The ignorant (not in terms of ability... in
> terms of knowledge and experience) have a great amount of difficulty
> picking up the strategies and skills. Games between the ignorant may
> end up with *no planets* being taken, or few planets being taken.

This is exactly wrong.  Games between the ignorant have many more planets
taken than games between top teams.

> Don't assume that because others have failed, or that because you suspect
> you would fail, that it is not possible.

I suspect YOU will fail.  If the problem interested me, I'm sure I could
do a better job than you, but I think it's an extremely difficult problem.

> People have always laughed at other people for pursuing little
> understood arts. I suggest to you, that if you are not able to make
> a robot to do what you do, then it is you yourself who does not
> understand the art.

Forget it, I'm not wasting any more time here.