[math-fun] Game Theory/Chess strategy question
Everyone who's ever played games like chess quickly learns an opponent's style of play, whether it be aggressively offensive, or methodically defensive. I'm curious about the _types_ of games that encourage offensive strategies v. the types of games that encourage defensive strategies. Some evolutionary biologists have claimed that Darwinian evolution optimizes by using an almost purely offensive strategy. I don't have an opinion one way or another, but was curious about what sorts of environments might favor one strategy versus another.
Good question, however, I'm focusing on the game of evolution itself, not on the strategies of individuals of the species. So the real question is whether evolution attempts to protect a particular niche, versus attacking new niches. Many evolutionary biologists would claim that evolution tries to attack new niches with some significant effort, hence the willingness of evolution to sacrifice many failed experiments in genetic mixing in the hope of finding some new successful combinations. At 12:40 PM 8/15/2014, Dan Asimov wrote:
What about rabbits, pill bugs, turtles, porcupines, squirrels?
--Dan
On Aug 15, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Some evolutionary biologists have claimed that Darwinian evolution optimizes by using an almost purely offensive strategy.
Does evolution "attempt", "try", "sacrifice" or "hope"? That's not my understanding of evolution. On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Good question, however, I'm focusing on the game of evolution itself, not on the strategies of individuals of the species.
So the real question is whether evolution attempts to protect a particular niche, versus attacking new niches. Many evolutionary biologists would claim that evolution tries to attack new niches with some significant effort, hence the willingness of evolution to sacrifice many failed experiments in genetic mixing in the hope of finding some new successful combinations.
At 12:40 PM 8/15/2014, Dan Asimov wrote:
What about rabbits, pill bugs, turtles, porcupines, squirrels?
--Dan
On Aug 15, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Some evolutionary biologists have claimed that Darwinian evolution optimizes by using an almost purely offensive strategy.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Evolution certainly does "try", in the sense that it tries everything! But I think Henry's question still could make sense: in a game where the players' strategy is "try everything and do whatever works", do offensive or defensive things tend to work more? In the case of evolution, the best you can hope for in a "defensive" setting is dominating your niche, i.e. expanding to its carrying capacity. In the long term there's no up side; species that diversify and expand their habitat will of course have more ways to grow over time. But at some point they will count as a different species, so I'm not sure *who* counts as winning when that happens. Well, I suppose you could compete in the defensive niche by expanding your habitat! And actually beavers do exactly this. But in some sense that's actually an offensive strategy; I'm not sure the two categories are well-defined. As Dawkins has pointed out eloquently, it makes more sense to think of *genes*, rather than species, when thinking about the evolution game. I don't think I know what offense or defense mean there. --Michael On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:46 PM, W. Edwin Clark <wclark@mail.usf.edu> wrote:
Does evolution "attempt", "try", "sacrifice" or "hope"? That's not my understanding of evolution.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Good question, however, I'm focusing on the game of evolution itself, not on the strategies of individuals of the species.
So the real question is whether evolution attempts to protect a particular niche, versus attacking new niches. Many evolutionary biologists would claim that evolution tries to attack new niches with some significant effort, hence the willingness of evolution to sacrifice many failed experiments in genetic mixing in the hope of finding some new successful combinations.
At 12:40 PM 8/15/2014, Dan Asimov wrote:
What about rabbits, pill bugs, turtles, porcupines, squirrels?
--Dan
On Aug 15, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Some evolutionary biologists have claimed that Darwinian evolution optimizes by using an almost purely offensive strategy.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Forewarned is worth an octopus in the bush.
What about rabbits, pill bugs, turtles, porcupines, squirrels?
They're terrible at chess. Maybe a hedgehog, though? On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Michael Kleber <michael.kleber@gmail.com> wrote:
Evolution certainly does "try", in the sense that it tries everything! But I think Henry's question still could make sense: in a game where the players' strategy is "try everything and do whatever works", do offensive or defensive things tend to work more?
In the case of evolution, the best you can hope for in a "defensive" setting is dominating your niche, i.e. expanding to its carrying capacity. In the long term there's no up side; species that diversify and expand their habitat will of course have more ways to grow over time. But at some point they will count as a different species, so I'm not sure *who* counts as winning when that happens.
Well, I suppose you could compete in the defensive niche by expanding your habitat! And actually beavers do exactly this. But in some sense that's actually an offensive strategy; I'm not sure the two categories are well-defined.
As Dawkins has pointed out eloquently, it makes more sense to think of *genes*, rather than species, when thinking about the evolution game. I don't think I know what offense or defense mean there.
--Michael
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:46 PM, W. Edwin Clark <wclark@mail.usf.edu> wrote:
Does evolution "attempt", "try", "sacrifice" or "hope"? That's not my understanding of evolution.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Good question, however, I'm focusing on the game of evolution itself, not on the strategies of individuals of the species.
So the real question is whether evolution attempts to protect a particular niche, versus attacking new niches. Many evolutionary biologists would claim that evolution tries to attack new niches with some significant effort, hence the willingness of evolution to sacrifice many failed experiments in genetic mixing in the hope of finding some new successful combinations.
At 12:40 PM 8/15/2014, Dan Asimov wrote:
What about rabbits, pill bugs, turtles, porcupines, squirrels?
--Dan
On Aug 15, 2014, at 6:44 AM, Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> wrote:
Some evolutionary biologists have claimed that Darwinian evolution optimizes by using an almost purely offensive strategy.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Forewarned is worth an octopus in the bush. _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Thane Plambeck tplambeck@gmail.com http://counterwave.com/
participants (6)
-
Cris Moore -
Dan Asimov -
Henry Baker -
Michael Kleber -
Thane Plambeck -
W. Edwin Clark