How To Take An Interesting Game Show

and make it boring?

[lawman]

Jeopardy did it for three days. [bbc.co.uk...]

I watched most of day 1, about 5 minutes of day 2, and none of day three. The first thing that bothered me was that Jeopardy suspended being a game show and p imped itself out as an advertiser for IBM. The second thing was how quickly it became boring.

Maybe if Alex and Co. offered a public apology, I might start watching again.

[incrediBILL]

Boring?

Are you out of your mind?

This was history making, way more so than when Deep Blue won at chess.

I think I shed a tear at one point because never, since I picked up my first CPU chip 1975 and placed it on a circuit board, did I ever think I'd live long enough to see a computer even get close to challenging a human in anything like Jeopardy.

Watson took humans to the slaughter in the last truly human game that requires being able to interpret the nuances of human language and puns in order to get the correct answer.

I was completely blown away that Watson performed so well and trounced 2 of the best players on the planet.

Watching Watson's selections and alternate selections was quite interesting to see a glimpse into it's AI thought processes.

Sorry we can't all be so jaded, but I was glad I witnessed the 2nd greatest human vs. computer competition of intelligence in my lifetime and glued to the screen for every moment.

In space terms, Deep Blue was merely Sputnik, Watson was Apollo 11, the AI eagle has landed.

It was truly amazing.

[piatkow]

Take the "antitdote to panel games" - even without Humph it is still excellent.

[lawman]

History making no doubt. Boring insofar as the game show goes? Quite so.

I knew most of the questions (answers?) so they couldn't have been too difficult. If eveyone knows the answers it comes down to who is quicker on the trigger. To make it appear to be more realistic/competitive, some way of handicapping the "ring in" should have been implemented.

[incrediBILL]

...and here I thought I was the resident curmudgeon, tsk tsk.

I knew a lot of the answers too but I sure didn't get to them quite as quickly as Watson.

Why handicap your best player?

Once Ken Jennings got on a roll in game #2 I was worried Watson was done, but far from it.

That's why Paul Saffo, a longtime Silicon Valley forecaster, and others, see better search engines as the ultimate benefit from the "Jeopardy!"-playing machine.

"We are headed toward a world where you are going to have a conversation with a machine," Saffo said. "Within five to10 years, we'll look back and roll our eyes at the idea that search queries were a string of answers and not conversations."

[news.yahoo.com...]

This is exactly how I see it's potential, Watson technology could be a real game changer for search engines, ask a question and get a real answer, not a list of spam SERPs.

[Old_Honky]

Take the "antitdote to panel games" - even without Humph it is still excellent.

I second that motion. I haven't a clue what "Jeopardy" is but I'd love to see the computer beat a human on "Mornington Crescent"

[lawman]

Somebody has a man crush on Watson. ;)

[jecasc]

Actually I am not so impressed by Watsons performance. No sign of Artificial Intelligence here, just breaking down the grammar of questions, searching in a database for possible answers and returning the one with the highest probability. Sure - good programming. But AI? Not even close.

[Demaestro]

I was pretty impressed too but I agree it wasn't so much AI as it was MI.. mimicking intelligence.

For me true AI would be able to go from jeopardy to wheel of fortune without additional programming. True AI would be able to watch wheel of fortune, figure out how it is played, then play it.

[g1smd]

@piatkow. Aye. A few rounds of Mornington Crescent really get the old brain going.

[piatkow]

Any takers for a game here?

[Status_203]

Any takers for a game here?

Which rules?

[piatkow]

1948 Championship Rules - I believe that they are the standard unless otherwise indicated.

[StoutFiles]

No sign of Artificial Intelligence here, just breaking down the grammar of questions, searching in a database for possible answers and returning the one with the highest probability. Sure - good programming. But AI? Not even close.

What do you think our brain does? This is how AI is supposed to work.

However, this wasn't about Watson's intelligence as it was more about Watson's ability to buzz in faster than a human. Any question where all of them would be hitting the buzzer, Watson almost always won out having almost no reaction time.

[Old_Honky]

1948 Championship Rules - I believe that they are the standard unless otherwise indicated.

Agreed but please understand that under strict 1948 rules the Limehouse subterfuge can only be used diagonally.

I'll start:
Portobello Road.

[g1smd]

The Polkington 1968 amendments make for a much more intellectual version.

That said... Edgware Road.

[piatkow]

That opens the way for the Lyttleton Gambit. However we can avoid that on a reverse diagonal.

Queens Park

[g1smd]

Using the famed "Rushton swerve"...

Wimbledon

[piatkow]

Your forgot that the tennis ground is nearer Southfields which would have put me in nip.

However, as you have put us on the District Line:
Upminster Bridge

[akmac]

A shrewd move indeed. A novice might have been baited into a classic Hangman's Treaty there-but you've cleverly avoided it (while baiting a trap of your own, I might add ;-)

Becontree

[Demaestro]

Ok... I have to ask what the crap are you guys going on about?

North Winchester?!?!?

[piatkow]

You noticed. That move, sometimes referred to as the Brook-Taylor Bounce is quite sticky especially as verticals are difficult that far east. However the DLR does give some openings.

London City Airport

[piatkow]

@Demaestro - I think you need to consult a copy of "NF Stovold's Mornington Crescent: Rules and Origins". This is out of print but a good second hand bookshop should be able to find you a copy. Normally I would suggest just watching the play but with some expert and quite vicious moves being played it could get a little confusing.

You could also try The Little Book of Mornington Crescent (2001; ISBN 0-7528-1864-3) which doesn't give a full set of rules but is a good introduction.

[g1smd]

@Demaestro This gives you a flavour... [youtube.com...]


Hang on, you can't have London City Airport. It wasn't built until 1986.

Precedent: In the famed Vladmorsmirkanoff vs. Schmittmann-Tegtmeyer final of 1992, Barbican was disallowed under the same rules, as it was built in 1988.

I could have invoked the Two Hour Challenge but this is easier.

Have another go. :)

[akmac]

But, according to Parliamentary Coup, mustn't an illegal play be immediately succeeded by a precise lateral? Only AFTER which, a date infraction may be called on the offending player and subsequent point losses deducted?

Let's keep it friendly, please.

East India

[piatkow]

But I can invoke Mortimer's Shift

Gospel Oak

[lawman]

Who is Samantha?

[g1smd]

The scorekeeper; usually "sat on the quizmaster's right hand" (innuendo intended).


Gospel Oak? Easy. St Pauls.

[caribguy]

Going to join in in a few moments. Never played before, so don't be too harsh on me please.

Hope I can memorize the rules! Is it ok to use the Finnish translation of the Tudor Blakely rulebook (1st ed)?

[caribguy]

Ok, strategic move: gonna straddle the lines at Nam Cheong. I'll return Samantha in two turns after I sit out the overnight station closing penalty.