It doesn’t have to be that a novice has a chance against an expert, in order for there to be declining returns to further expertise. As an example, rock-scissors-paper-nothing (rock beats scissors and nothing, scissors beats paper and nothing, paper beats rock and nothing) has the “expert” strategy of “randomize, but never choose “nothing”), which beats the incredible-novice who chooses “nothing” most of the time. Further, there is expertise in noticing patterns among your opponents, while obscuring the patterns that such prediction brings to your plays. But very good AI can probably do better than 50% against human experts, without getting anywhere near 100%.
84% for Stratego is higher than I’d have predicted.
It doesn’t have to be that a novice has a chance against an expert, in order for there to be declining returns to further expertise. As an example, rock-scissors-paper-nothing (rock beats scissors and nothing, scissors beats paper and nothing, paper beats rock and nothing) has the “expert” strategy of “randomize, but never choose “nothing”), which beats the incredible-novice who chooses “nothing” most of the time. Further, there is expertise in noticing patterns among your opponents, while obscuring the patterns that such prediction brings to your plays. But very good AI can probably do better than 50% against human experts, without getting anywhere near 100%.
84% for Stratego is higher than I’d have predicted.