Single Comment

Why the desire/drive to design games computers find it difficult to play?
Competition. I know it's a John Henry sort of thing, at best - especially
since I'm a strong AI proponent. I accept that computers can out-calculate
me in most chess variants. I'm looking for games where people can compete
on more or less even terms with a computer. Not games that computers
can't play, but games that computers can't calculate people to death in.


If I understand correctly, the big advantage that computers have over
people is the ply-depth, or number of moves, the computer can calculate.
What ways are there to make the calculation of ply-depth more difficult
without making things too complex for a human? Or are there any?

Possibly another way to express this is that I'm looking for contests
where the advantage is not all on the computer's side. Computers don't
play complex wargames, with multi-move turns and all the other
paraphernalia they entail, nearly as well as chess. To me, a 'contest'
implies more than 1 side can win. I don't play arithmetic games [eg: Fizz
Buzz or speed-multiplying 2 2-digit numbers] against computers because
there's no contest. I do play games like Sid Meier's Civilization, where
I do have a chance. FIDE seems to have moved from one side of that line to
the other recently. [Lol, maybe what I'm saying is that I could beat the
original chess computers...]

So, not a need, but a desire, and not a superiority but a parity - that's
what I'm hoping for. The best games are those where both sides have a
chance. Since we play against computers so much these days, then at least
some of our design should reflect that, I think. And now, off my soapbox
'til next time. ;-)