# Games people are better at than computers **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [February 25, 2014, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254 "2014-02-25T20:42:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/41 "2014-02-27T17:22:45Z")
> [@Tabby\_Cat](#): > > All the people saying “Go” are kinda outdated. Go is being played by computers at pro levels right now - a professional 9dan has lost to a computer playing Go albeit with 4 stone handicap. > > Zen matches against Ohashi Hirofumi and Takemiya Masaki were announced in February 2012.[21] On March 17, 2012 Zen beats Takemiya 9p at 5 stones by eleven points followed by a stunning twenty point win at a 4 stone handicap. Takemiya remarked “I had no idea that computer go had come this far.” - [Computer Go - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go) I will admit that I know essentially nothing about Go, but it does seem like it’s the sort of game that will ultimately fall to Moore’s Law, just as chess did in its time. ---
**Author:** ![DCnDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dcndc/32/2842_2.png) [@DCnDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DCnDC)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/42 "2014-02-27T17:27:50Z")
Madden. The computer player sucks! ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/43 "2014-02-27T20:27:34Z")
> [@lisiate](#): > > The traditional [answer is Go.](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/aug/03/insideit.guardianweeklytechnologysection). That article is a little old but I’m not aware of any breakthroughs since then. I thought there was a breakthrough of sorts recently - some software switched to a Monte Carlo method (similar to what I have seen computers do with Scrabble; they play a sizable number of games out from a particular position to determine the best move). I don’t think any computer is at Shodan yet, but they’re better than the 13 Kyu they seemed to be stuck at years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/44 "2014-02-27T20:40:47Z")
I doubt computers would even be very good at playing preconstructed decks, if they weren’t given specific instruction on it. There are just too many subtleties in the interactions of even simple cards. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/45 "2014-02-27T20:59:56Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > In this case though we’re getting beyond “strategy game” and into just an outright video game. Starcraft is real time and so speed and reaction time can be as important as strategizing. If you converted it into a turn based game, the computer would lose to any reasonably experienced player. Bah, a real-time game is just a turn based game where the turn times trend towards zero :D. ---
**Author:** ![Sterling\_Archer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Sterling\_Archer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterling_Archer)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/46 "2014-02-27T22:10:47Z")
Hearts? Spades? Euchre? Pinochle? Rook? Are there computers who play these games better than humans? Because I haven’t seen them if so. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/47 "2014-02-28T01:12:00Z")
I can usually crush the computer in any poker game I’ve tried. Computers aren’t great at bluffing or detecting bluffing. ---
**Author:** ![shijinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@shijinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shijinn)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/48 "2014-02-28T01:22:52Z")
i should ask again though - besides Chess and Go, has there been any serious effort given to make these AI to actually crush humans? it seems to me that developers would not spend too much time on the AI in games instead of multiplayer. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/49 "2014-02-28T01:24:01Z")
Well, that’s a good point. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/50 "2014-03-01T18:37:07Z")
I’m curious about the state of chess AIs vs. humans at this point. I would break my question down like this: 1. Will the best chess AI always beat _any_ human in a tournament? 2. Will the best chess AI always beat any human in a single game? (I know this was not true in the second series of Deep Blue vs. Kasparov. IIRC, DB won 2, K won 1, and there were three draws.) 3. If the computer will not necessarily win, can a human reliably play for a draw? IOW, could it be possible that human chess playing ability will remain high enough to draw against any AI for the foreseeable future? BTW, chess and go definitely cannot be “solved” in the conventional sense with a digital computer. The solution tree would require all the atoms in the universe to store in any conceivable material format. It may be possible, however, in the future for a quantum computer to solve chess for any particular position and play perfectly. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/51 "2014-03-01T19:08:09Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Diplomacy. When the world Dip champ is a computer, I’ll acknowledge that the goal of ‘true AI’ has been achieved, or at least close enough as to make no difference. > > I’m surprised that a pair of computers haven’t already been able to outplay the best humans. > > Even with their wifi turned off. 😛 Hmm. I should host a Dip game, RT. Maybe Facebook based. You in? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/52 "2014-03-04T02:08:46Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Hmm. I should host a Dip game, RT. Maybe Facebook based. > > You in? Alas, no. I just don’t have the time for it these days. But thanks for asking! ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/53 "2014-03-04T02:36:43Z")
One factor to consider is play against opponent weaknesses. Play may be considered “perfect” when any winnable game is won, and any drawable game is drawn, but a good player must also know how to induce opponent errors. For example, an excellent poker program might have a positive expectation against any individual player, but not be the _fastest_ money winner at a table. > [@Aeschines](#): > > BTW, chess and go definitely cannot be “solved” in the conventional sense with a digital computer. The solution tree would require all the atoms in the universe to store in any conceivable material format. Nitpick: The [number of chess positions is less than 10[sup]47[/sup]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number). The number of distinct possible _games_ may be more than the universe’s atoms, but there would be no need to store them all – a few bits _per possible position_ would suffice to prepare or depict the complete solution. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/54 "2014-03-04T03:42:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Aeschines** : > > It may be possible, however, in the future for a quantum computer to solve chess for any particular position and play perfectly. I thought that for a long time, too, but it turns out that smarter minds than I have already calculated some limits on the sorts of problems quantum computers can solve, and chess is provably outside of that space. That said, though, it’s still conceivable that someone will someday find some very clever trick to solve chess without brute force, similarly (in principle) to how Nim is solved without brute force. It’s also conceivable (a lot more so) that, even without provably solving chess, computers will get so good at it that they’ll either always win with white or always draw with black, making the game, in practice, solved. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2014, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/55 "2014-03-04T04:19:23Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I’m curious about the state of chess AIs vs. humans at this point. I would break my question down like this: > > 1. Will the best chess AI always beat _any_ human in a tournament? > > 2. Will the best chess AI always beat any human in a single game? (I know this was not true in the second series of Deep Blue vs. Kasparov. IIRC, DB won 2, K won 1, and there were three draws.) > > 3. If the computer will not necessarily win, can a human reliably play for a draw? IOW, could it be possible that human chess playing ability will remain high enough to draw against any AI for the foreseeable future? > > BTW, chess and go definitely cannot be “solved” in the conventional sense with a digital computer. The solution tree would require all the atoms in the universe to store in any conceivable material format. It may be possible, however, in the future for a quantum computer to solve chess for any particular position and play perfectly. 1. It depends on the time control. The shorter the time control, the more favorable for the computer. Humans think slow by comparison, so it’s not so much a computer advantage as it is a human disadvantage. At standard time control (40 moves, 120 minutes+60minutes sudden death), I can say that the human will likely never, ever win. He can draw, though. 2. Not at all. Chess itself has a problem with draws. There are many positions where a side can have a better position but not be able to convert it. So a Grandmaster has a little bit of room for error. By the way, Deep Blue is the equivalent of a car phone…completely obsolete and outclassed in every way. [Today’s top engine](http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/rating_list_all.html) is Houdini 3, though Houdini 4 was just released. Runners-up are Rybka, Komodo and Stockfish. Honorable mention to Deep Fritz. 3. Depends on if you let the human research the engine first. Carlsen might be able to prepare a drawing line against a known opponent. I certainly have found a few against Houdini 4, but I’m not skilled enough to hold the draw once I’ve reached it. All you have to do is find closed positions and memorize how to keep them closed. Not that hard. This is all assuming you’re using the top performance platform for the engine. If you install it on a phone and turn off Ponder (i.e. “think on human’s time”), yeah, you could beat it. [Here’s a famous game](http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1497429) where America’s #1 beats Rybka in 2008. ---
**Author:** ![shijinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@shijinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shijinn)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/56 "2014-03-11T00:37:40Z")
who will win in a game of Ping Pong? answer in about 3 hours. probably later if the site crashes. website - [http://www.kuka-timoboll.com/en/home/](http://www.kuka-timoboll.com/en/home/) youtube trailer - [Timo Boll vs. KUKA robot - Teaser - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mbdtupCbc4) ---
**Author:** ![shijinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@shijinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shijinn)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2014, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/57 "2014-03-11T04:35:10Z")
wow that was lame. i was expecting a real match and got a lousy, shaky cam commercial instead. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2019, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/58 "2019-05-11T01:37:45Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > Yeah, I’d suspect that you could program an AI to do well with a single tight deck, especially if you’re limiting the deck choices for the opponent. I’d consider that a pretty narrow definition of “playing Magic” though and wouldn’t be especially impressed by it. Unlike board games like chess or even games like poker, too much of Magic involves the ability to build something from a vast assortment of (potentially randomly assigned) cards and I can’t imagine the AI holding up under a draft tournament situation, for example. Even if you’re not talking draft, if the AI is having a human-constructed deck handed to it with specific instructions how to play it, it’s not really the AI doing 75% of the job (deck construction). Years later and [science has determined](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.09828.pdf) that computers can’t learn how to play Magic: the Gathering in a “perfect” way. That link leads to the actual research paper about it (which is a somewhat amusing read to see M:tG cards get tossed about in a research paper) but I’ll steal a few quotes from [Kotaku](https://kotaku.com/magic-the-gathering-is-so-complex-it-could-stump-a-com-1834623872) to give you the gist of it: > [@](#): > > Human players might not be alone in feeling overwhelmed: A new research paper argues that the game is so complex that there are even cases where a computer theoretically wouldn’t be able to figure out how to win. > > A group of researchers argues that Magic: The Gathering is so complex there are cases in which it would be impossible for a computer to figure out a fool-proof way to win. “This construction establishes that Magic: The Gathering is the most computationally complex real-world game known in the literature,” they write. > […] > What they ended up finding was that Magic: The Gathering isn’t just more complex than most other games, it’s actually noncomputable in some cases. It’s yet unclear just how many of those cases there are, but there are currently conceivable matches where there’s no way an algorithm can figure out the optimal path to victory. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2019, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/59 "2019-05-11T02:20:52Z")
> [@Jophiel](#): > > Years later and [science has determined](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.09828.pdf) that computers can’t learn how to play Magic: the Gathering in a “perfect” way. That link leads to the actual research paper about it (which is a somewhat amusing read to see M:tG cards get tossed about in a research paper) but I’ll steal a few quotes from [Kotaku](https://kotaku.com/magic-the-gathering-is-so-complex-it-could-stump-a-com-1834623872) to give you the gist of it: I mean, that’s a given - MTG is as much about bluffing and knowing your opponent’s likely deck composition as it is about using your own cards and abusing the byzantine rules. ---
**Author:** ![Arrogance\_Ex\_Machina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/arrogance_ex_machina/32/192_2.png) [@Arrogance\_Ex\_Machina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arrogance_Ex_Machina)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2019, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254/60 "2019-05-11T03:03:22Z")
It’s amusing to see that the two first replies in this 5 years old thread are both obsolete by now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/games-people-are-better-at-than-computers/682254.md?page=4)