I actually played many games of RPS throughout my life. I even did a RPS science fair project my senior year where I went to the state level. I played my judges and ended up determining what their first two moves were as my opener for my presentation. I've easily played hundreds of thousands of games in my lifetime. In fact, I just played the AI for 1,000 matches and had the following results:
I won: 373
ties: 331
Computer won: 296
I started off behind actually, but soon caught on and experienced a geometric increase of wins versus losses over time. Note how you can observe "what the computer is thinking". It's actually quite simple logic. Given the data set against 200,000 games it chooses what is most probable to win. I won't go in to the details as to what the algorithm was, you can understand it when you see it. But it makes sense. Because it had to follow that data set I found a few times where it seemed forced into certain patterns. I noticed many "paper, paper, rock sequences". I got a lot of wins out of it through that pattern. It seems that it can't adapt to you personally in real time but rather it is forced to reference its data set. Because of this, it can be defeated by humans still.
It's just a matter of being proactive and noticing the patterns instead of being reactive and falling into the standard human pattern yourself. I know the standard human pattern exists from my own experiences. 90% of males start out with "scissors, paper" (at least in the Ohio area) and that was exactly how I beat all of my male judges.
On a personal level, I love RPS. When two really good players are playing it as if they are staring into the depths of each other's souls and psyches. In the end, we all have a pattern. The winner is determined by how deep their pattern analysis and memory are.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually played many games of RPS throughout my life. I even did a RPS science fair project my senior year where I went to the state level. I played my judges and ended up determining what their first two moves were as my opener for my presentation. I've easily played hundreds of thousands of games in my lifetime. In fact, I just played the AI for 1,000 matches and had the following results: I won: 373 ties: 331 Computer won: 296 I started off behind actually, but soon caught on and experienced a geometric increase of wins versus losses over time. Note how you can observe "what the computer is thinking". It's actually quite simple logic. Given the data set against 200,000 games it chooses what is most probable to win. I won't go in to the details as to what the algorithm was, you can understand it when you see it. But it makes sense. Because it had to follow that data set I found a few times where it seemed forced into certain patterns. I noticed many "paper, paper, rock sequences". I got a lot of wins out of it through that pattern. It seems that it can't adapt to you personally in real time but rather it is forced to reference its data set. Because of this, it can be defeated by humans still. It's just a matter of being proactive and noticing the patterns instead of being reactive and falling into the standard human pattern yourself. I know the standard human pattern exists from my own experiences. 90% of males start out with "scissors, paper" (at least in the Ohio area) and that was exactly how I beat all of my male judges. On a personal level, I love RPS. When two really good players are playing it as if they are staring into the depths of each other's souls and psyches. In the end, we all have a pattern. The winner is determined by how deep their pattern analysis and memory are.