Why there has never been a research interest in taikyoku shogi?I would assume that game is perfect for CS research, more than chess and go.
>>96929982There are two difficulties those being that only two complete sets exist in the world, the other being nobody knows the goddamned rules.
>>96930027You can still design a modern ruleset based on speculation of the historical records.
>>96930042Yes, but any research putting that much work just to get a game running would be better served by playing a game where the full rules aren't lost media, for the sake of both the program and the people playing against it.
>>96930042>a modern rulesetThen it's not the game.>>96929982Research takes money. There just isn't enough interest to throw money at it in the past 30 years since it was rediscovered as a game they don't know the rules for, with board size, number of pieces, and distinct movement types all 2 to 2.5x larger than the next largest game into which they also haven't done much research as they don't know the rules very well and also has low interest.There just aren't many historical records that attest to the game or its rules. Researchers have to have not only someone who reads Japanese, but who reads Late Middle/Early Modern Japanese written by Buddhist monks who, being Japanese Buddhist monks were most likely traditionalists, were writing in Kansai dialect, unless they want to trust that such translations as have been made are accurate. Lack of a translator rules out finding new sources of which there are currently three. The main source for the rediscovery was a Japanese guy who wrote a book but didn't cite his sources so for all we know he made stuff up: refer to the first line I wrote above. Finding historical sources for it is likely to be either an unfruitful search or a poring over thousands upon thousands of untranslated old fashioned style Japanese documents in the archives of various institutions including temples and finding something by accident which is how so many interesting historical documents have been found.As for play research, not only is ordinary shogi, for which we know rules, more complex than chess and no one in the business thinks they are anywhere near close to solving chess but this game is many orders of magnitude more complex than ordinary shogi. Too few people play any big shogi versions to attract interest of jumping over the smaller ones, it's not of historical interest as an oldest discovered game. There's nothing for it other than, like your post, some sort of weird flex like "look at this big thing I just found out about".
>>96930027(I know the rules.)
>>96934673And so do I.
>>96929982>36 by 36 board>402 pieces per side>207 different piece types>players have to remember 253 unique movesetsThis seems like a neat historical curiosity that's also completely fucking unplayable. If it was invented today it would be classified as a joke variant and summarily ignored.At least the piece names are cool>Free dream-eater>Blind dog>Long-nosed goblin>Guardian of the gods
>>96934416>no one in the business thinks they are anywhere near close to solving chessUm, actually... Either there is a winning strategy to either side or not (funny thing that rule of excluded middle.) It means chess is either unfair or pointless.>>96929982Is there a piece that moves like bishop+knight?
Lmao what the fuck is this shit
>>96939703Classifying all balanced games as "pointless" is a novel form of retardation.
>>96939725America is in Taikyoku Shogi?
>>96939736The only retard here is (You). Chess is not "balanced" whatever you mean by it. If there's no winning strategy then you may propose a draw before the first move.
>>96939725>lern all the rulez>die of old agean ideal life
>>96929982Nah this is just ancient version of modern day 'big' board games for the lads who enjoy 7-hour matches of TI/etc these days. It would probably be very easy to find an optimal strategy with modern computation since the rules would have been too complicated to balance without simulation access.
Looking up how much it'd cost to have playing cards printed with the piece name and move diagram, so you could play randomized games of bizarro chess on a normal board.
>>96950107>playing cards printedTwo dollars of ink, and maybe 5 for decent paper.
>>96952491Checked some actual companies who do full custom cards, looks to be about $70-100 for one deck of all 200-something cards on swanky casino quality paper in a nice box. Might actually make one, cause this seems like just the kind of unique and mildly interesting but ultimately useless crap you'd find in one of those fancy bookstores.
>>96930042Not having a standardized, already existing ruleset means it's unpopular to solve. At that point you're basically asking "why don't CS make up entirely new games to solve?" Which should be obvious
>>96939703>Um, actually... Either there is a winning strategy to either side or not (funny thing that rule of excluded middle.) It means chess is either unfair or pointless.Um, actually, people actively researching solutions or not, let alone them being close to finding a solution, has no bearing on the existence of some hypothetical winning strategy. It means your post is pointless.
>>96946160>It would probably be very easy to find an optimal strategy with modern computation since the rules would have been too complicated to balance without simulation access.They might find one, but they wouldn't know if it was optimal or not unless they solved the game and they are no where near being even a little close to that for shogi let alone finding a solution a bigger and much more complicated version of shogi.
>>96960478I'd bet against you on that. The more complex a ruleset becomes the easier the game becomes to break.You don't need to solve the game if you can find a set of moves that snowballs your advantage enough.Sure there might be a *faster* snowball, but the game is already ruined anyway.
>>96941519You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Games where a guaranteed winning strategy exists are the pointless ones. No one plays competitive tic-tac-toe. Such games reduce themselves to following a script.Games where such a strategy does not exist (or at least isn't known) are the only games where it makes sense to play them.Don't bother arguing, your IQ is too low to handle this topic.
>>96962722>You don't need to solve the game if you can find a set of moves that snowballs your advantage enough.You literally cant know that unless you solve it. You're discounting the possibility of counterplay completely in a game that's all about counterplay.
>>96939675>36 by 36 board>402 pieces per side>207 different piece types>players have to remember 253 unique movesets>wait until Anon hears about 40K
>>96962722Did you forget what you wrote?You said>>>It would probably be easy to find an optimal strategy using computer power.I said>>You wouldn't know your strategy was optimal until you solved it and they're nowhere close to solving little shogi let alone big shogiYou said>I'd bet against that.You lose.Big shogi complexity >> Shogi complexity >> Chess complexityThe symbol >> means much greater than but unless you knew that already it won't communicate the difference well enough and that you've been saying big shogi is easier than chess tells me you didn't know it already. It's not like chess and shogi are even a little bit comparable in complexity. There are programs that can reliably beat humans but that's not even a little bit like solving it.>You don't need to solve the game if you can find a set of moves that snowballs your advantage enough.>Sure there might be a *faster* snowball,That last line I already said. Thanks for making my argument for me.
>>96929982Go doesn't need any research.
>>96962804>Games where a guaranteed winning strategy exists are the pointless ones.This isn't true. Poker is a solvable game, but the solution is impossible to implement. So people still play it. It doesn't matter if the script exists or not if you can't read it.
>>96962722so chess is also alredy ruined because there are already well-known optimal strategies?
>>96971550What's the poker strategy? Sounds hard to think of one in a game based around random chance and bluffing
>>96971567It's solvable, but only limit hold'em is actually fully solved. The problem is every bet size will be used and a human can not possibly memorize every situation and even less implement the randomness correctly.Don't have a handy visual but you can look up 'poker gto' to learn more. Basically in a given situation the perfect strategy will be to say bet n chips x_n% of the time. However, n and x_n are both functions of your position, the amount of chips every player (including those not in the hand) has, the time left on the tournament level and payout structure for tournaments, all prior actions taken in the hand, and so on. It's also important to note that game theory optimal poker means you can't be beaten, but is far from the best way to make money playing poker. Since game theory optimal assumes other players are good, and in reality many suck, you can make more money exploiting their weaknesses. However, this in turn opens you up to exploitation yourself. So playing the solved, or as close to it as you can, strategy of poker is only really seen among very high level players when there's no low level player (aka fish) mixed in.The simplest analogy is actually roshambo; it's probabilistic. To play roshambo properly you need to throw each symbol EXACTLY 1/3 of the time--but also completely randomly--and will naturally over time beat anyone who fails to do so. However, actually implementing this strategy is exceedingly difficult even for a vastly simpler game.
