Rock, paper, scissors
18/03/15 05:39
OK here is a blog topic that has been on my list for weeks and weeks, and I’ve never gotten past the title. But I really have nothing rational to say about the reelection of Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel or the visit of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall to Washington, DC, or the protest-turned-riot in Frankfurt, or the banning of Pennsylvania State’s Kappa Delta Rho fraternity for their secret Facebook page. I suppose I should have something to say about the Rapid City School District and the potential opt out vote or the visit of Tim Tebow to the Civic Center, but I really don’t. Some days the news feels a bit random to me and I can’t think of anything very meaningful to say about it all.
You know the game: Rock, Paper, Scissors. Two people square off, count down and offer their hand gestures. The same three gestures can be chosen by either opponent. An extended fist is “rock.” Rock beats scissors. A flat palm is “paper.” Paper beats rock. The forefinger and middle finger extended with the other fingers curled is “scissors.” Scissors beats paper. Two players means that a tie is possible. If a tie occurs the game is repeated. With each repetition of the game, the player gains knowledge of the choices of the opponent, and, sometimes, insight into what might be played next. Therefore the game isn’t really random. Depending on one’s perception, memory and insights into human behavior, there is a degree of predictability that can come and a strategy that can be pursued.
The game, however, doesn’t really involve very much skill.It works for deciding trivial matters such as who goes first in another game, or who gets the last brownie. Famously, the game was used to decide which auction house, Christie’s or Southerby's would be allowed to sell the $20 million art collection of Takashi Hashiyama. The game was played “sudden death” with the victory in the first round, and the auction business, going to Christie’s who played “scissors” against Southerby’s opening bid of “paper.”
I’m not sure I would enjoy that level of risk over a hand game, especially one that involves so little option for strategy. Then, again, there are a lot of ways that one might think about the game. Americans tend to like positions of strength and leading with “rock” seems to be leading with strength. But one has to consider not only one’s opening move, but that of one’s opponent. Perhaps knowing that “rock” is a strong position, and thereby likely to be chosen by one’s opponent, one might lead with “paper” to counter the “rock.” However, if you try to think it through, you’ll realize that your opponent might be thinking the same things as you and employing the same strategy, thereby making “scissors” the answer to the opponents’ expectation that you will lead with “rock.” If you think that is the strategy employed by Christie’s, you might be right, but the version of the story that is often reported has Christie’s art director consulting his 11-year-old twin daughters who suggested the “scissors” strategy.
If you play the game multiple times, the real mind games begin as soon as there is a tie. What are the chances your opponent will offer the same choice in the next round? You can probably predict how the opponent will change, if change occurs. For example, if both lead with “scissors” your opponent is likely to change to “rock” in anticipation of you not changing. Ah, but what if your opponent doesn’t change? Or what if your opponent expects you to change and therefor offers “paper” to counter your expected move to “rock,” in which case, you’d be ahead to stick with “scissors” in your second attempt?
I used to try to make myself unpredictable. If I led with “scissors,” I would offer “scissors” a second time, then repeat that same process again early in the game. Perhaps I would even do it a third time so that my opponent would begin to think that my strategy is predictable. That’s when I could lower the boom and offer “paper.”
More than a hand game, the real game is a mind game. I’m sure that there are algorithms that can be developed that consider the odds of choice and play a strategy that is a frequent winner. There are multiple web sites that offer the opportunity to play the game against a computer. Some have computers that offer truly random selections that favor the development of a bit of strategy. There are more sophisticated sites where the computer “learns” the moves of the human player. Actually it simply has a perfect memory of each move and uses its algorithm to choose its next move. If the human player shows any consistency or pattern, the computer can exploit that pattern.
I’ve never played more than five or six rounds against a computer. It is absolutely boring to me. With a human opponent, I can employ some thinking about human nature. Playing against a computer doesn’t offer any possibility of strategies that seem worth my time.
Perhaps all of this talk about a simple game has already become boring to you. Perhaps you’d be more interested if you knew that the United States Rock Paper Scissors League (USARPS) holds sanctioned tournaments, sponsored by a beer company, with prizes in the tens of thousands of dollars. I’m not basing my retirement strategy with the hopes of winning those competitions. I have no intention of entering.
Perhaps someday, when I’m fresh out of topics for the blog, I can write a commentary on “rock, paper, scissors, Spock, and lizard.” In that game there are two additional gestures: lizard is forming a hand puppet shape, with your thumb and forefinger making an opening circle (lizard) and the Spock gesture, opening a v between your middle and ring fingers. Spock beats both paper and rock; lizard beats both Spock and paper. Rock beats scissors and lizard. Paper beats rock and Spock. Scissors beat paper and lizard. You get it. Same game, more complex.
Who would have believed I could produce a thousand words on such an inane topic? I may not be able to conquer boredom, but I may be able to cause it.
You know the game: Rock, Paper, Scissors. Two people square off, count down and offer their hand gestures. The same three gestures can be chosen by either opponent. An extended fist is “rock.” Rock beats scissors. A flat palm is “paper.” Paper beats rock. The forefinger and middle finger extended with the other fingers curled is “scissors.” Scissors beats paper. Two players means that a tie is possible. If a tie occurs the game is repeated. With each repetition of the game, the player gains knowledge of the choices of the opponent, and, sometimes, insight into what might be played next. Therefore the game isn’t really random. Depending on one’s perception, memory and insights into human behavior, there is a degree of predictability that can come and a strategy that can be pursued.
The game, however, doesn’t really involve very much skill.It works for deciding trivial matters such as who goes first in another game, or who gets the last brownie. Famously, the game was used to decide which auction house, Christie’s or Southerby's would be allowed to sell the $20 million art collection of Takashi Hashiyama. The game was played “sudden death” with the victory in the first round, and the auction business, going to Christie’s who played “scissors” against Southerby’s opening bid of “paper.”
I’m not sure I would enjoy that level of risk over a hand game, especially one that involves so little option for strategy. Then, again, there are a lot of ways that one might think about the game. Americans tend to like positions of strength and leading with “rock” seems to be leading with strength. But one has to consider not only one’s opening move, but that of one’s opponent. Perhaps knowing that “rock” is a strong position, and thereby likely to be chosen by one’s opponent, one might lead with “paper” to counter the “rock.” However, if you try to think it through, you’ll realize that your opponent might be thinking the same things as you and employing the same strategy, thereby making “scissors” the answer to the opponents’ expectation that you will lead with “rock.” If you think that is the strategy employed by Christie’s, you might be right, but the version of the story that is often reported has Christie’s art director consulting his 11-year-old twin daughters who suggested the “scissors” strategy.
If you play the game multiple times, the real mind games begin as soon as there is a tie. What are the chances your opponent will offer the same choice in the next round? You can probably predict how the opponent will change, if change occurs. For example, if both lead with “scissors” your opponent is likely to change to “rock” in anticipation of you not changing. Ah, but what if your opponent doesn’t change? Or what if your opponent expects you to change and therefor offers “paper” to counter your expected move to “rock,” in which case, you’d be ahead to stick with “scissors” in your second attempt?
I used to try to make myself unpredictable. If I led with “scissors,” I would offer “scissors” a second time, then repeat that same process again early in the game. Perhaps I would even do it a third time so that my opponent would begin to think that my strategy is predictable. That’s when I could lower the boom and offer “paper.”
More than a hand game, the real game is a mind game. I’m sure that there are algorithms that can be developed that consider the odds of choice and play a strategy that is a frequent winner. There are multiple web sites that offer the opportunity to play the game against a computer. Some have computers that offer truly random selections that favor the development of a bit of strategy. There are more sophisticated sites where the computer “learns” the moves of the human player. Actually it simply has a perfect memory of each move and uses its algorithm to choose its next move. If the human player shows any consistency or pattern, the computer can exploit that pattern.
I’ve never played more than five or six rounds against a computer. It is absolutely boring to me. With a human opponent, I can employ some thinking about human nature. Playing against a computer doesn’t offer any possibility of strategies that seem worth my time.
Perhaps all of this talk about a simple game has already become boring to you. Perhaps you’d be more interested if you knew that the United States Rock Paper Scissors League (USARPS) holds sanctioned tournaments, sponsored by a beer company, with prizes in the tens of thousands of dollars. I’m not basing my retirement strategy with the hopes of winning those competitions. I have no intention of entering.
Perhaps someday, when I’m fresh out of topics for the blog, I can write a commentary on “rock, paper, scissors, Spock, and lizard.” In that game there are two additional gestures: lizard is forming a hand puppet shape, with your thumb and forefinger making an opening circle (lizard) and the Spock gesture, opening a v between your middle and ring fingers. Spock beats both paper and rock; lizard beats both Spock and paper. Rock beats scissors and lizard. Paper beats rock and Spock. Scissors beat paper and lizard. You get it. Same game, more complex.
Who would have believed I could produce a thousand words on such an inane topic? I may not be able to conquer boredom, but I may be able to cause it.