Have you ever played a suit of Tic-Tac Toe games with a friend, and lose every single game? If so, this could possibly be because the game is considered a "solved game". In a solved game, the win or loss can be anticipated ahead of time from a either player in the game. This feature of a game is more common in two paler games. In order to reach the predicted "endpoint" of a game mentally, the most useful strategy used is reverse logic, in which one puts themselves in the end-game position( most commonly the "winning position"), and then figure out the steps back to the beginning point of the game.
One well known solvable game is "Connect Four", where the first player of the game can always force a win. James D. Allen published an article providing behind the logic of this force win, provided via this link. Mind you, this article is terribly long and complex. I commend you if you actually take the time to read and understand this written game theory. "Chopsticks" is another solved game, where instead the second player can always force a win.
Most computer programs utilize the strategy of "reverse logic" when a computer is the opponent against a solo player. Digitized chess games usually have an algorithm in which the "computer player" can evaluate all the pathways to a "win" or "loss" endpoint position. Do you think these games are considered "flawed" if they adopt this feature? Can you think of any other solved games?
-Jen Joseph
The Fantastic Four
I don't think "forced win" games are necessarily flawed, though they definitely do get boring after a while. I think the main purpose of them is to be a learning tool as people become first introduced to games. I know that as kids, many of these "solved" games were quite fun, and through practice and rote playing, one would eventually start to figure out the strategies of these games. Obviously some would figure out the tricks faster than others, but its how all of us learned our processes of analyses. After we moved past these challenges, we started to look towards more intricate games that introduced more variables and less predictability.
ReplyDeleteI found this post to be very intriguing for a few reasons. First the games you talk about are undeniably games all of us have played throughout our life. Tic-Tac Toe is arguably the most played game ever. What elementary school student hasn't been bored in class and played Tic-Tac-Toe with their neighbor. So why don't they know this formula in which you cannot lose? They have access to computers and youtube. No matter how technological our lives get, I don't think Tic-Tac Toe will ever be completely eliminated from games because it is so simple. I remember when I was younger and I could never beat one of my friends at this game. He obviously knew this formula, but that makes the game more exciting. Their needs to be different skill levels in games or else what is the point of competition?
ReplyDeleteAnother valid point that I never thought about until this post is that Tic-Tac Toe doesn't make any money. It isn't a game built for profit because it can be played with a pencil and paper. There is no reason for a company to make an official Tic-Tac Toe board because it can be easily made on your own, yet the game has persisted on despite all the new apps that we can do to entertain ourselves. Some games are eternal. No matter what new games come out, nothing can beat the simplicity of them. Tic-Tac Toe is one of those games.
Although Tic-Tac-Toe is a solved game, the solving demonstrates that it is impossible to win when played logically, so no, unless you or your friend has a mental lapse, there will be no winner. In fact, it's one of the simplest games to learn completely because there are so few combinations of possible endgames. Playing 10-15 times basically exhausts all the possibilities.
ReplyDeleteConnect 4, however, is a different animal. Although it is a solved game, for any one person to completely follow through with the exact path needed to win after putting his first chip in the center column is pretty difficult. I liked to think that my conceptual understanding of Connect 4 was almost there because I'd almost universally defeat my opponent regardless of whether or not he went first. However, in 5th grade, this girl named Christine would beat me consistently. This was a humongous blow to my ego and I absolutely hated her guts because it meant that she was better. It was especially bitter because I wasn't a "sports kid" and took pride in my mental ability, which manifested itself in board games.
Fortunately for me and unfortunately for Christine, I now go to a better university. Fortunately for Christine and unfortunately for me, I'm still paying out the *** to attend while she gets a full ride.