# World Memory Championship



## pjk (Sep 1, 2007)

I just noticed that the 2007 World Memory Championship is going on right now, check:
http://web.aanet.com.au/memorysports/competition.php?id=wmc2007


----------



## ExoCorsair (Sep 1, 2007)

Those events look really interesting.


----------



## tim (Sep 1, 2007)

4140 binary digits in 30 minutes (138 digits/min, 2.3 digits/s). wow, ben is amazing.

btw. 5 german comeptitors under the top 10. They seem to be quite good, i never knew that .


----------



## gillesvdp (Sep 9, 2007)

At some competition we play sometimes (and not for a long time) the game Rock Paper Scissor.
If you are interested, there is a world championship in Toronto this year : www.worldrps.com


----------



## tim (Sep 9, 2007)

gillesvdp said:


> At some competition we play sometimes (and not for a long time) the game Rock Paper Scissor.
> If you are interested, there is a world championship in Toronto this year : www.worldrps.com



What the hell?


----------



## h3ndrik (Sep 9, 2007)

on amazon there are several books completely dealing with TACTICS for rps. but there is some interesting stuff in there, like for example a male competitor has a great probability of using 'rock' cause the fist used to be the symbol for power, since men were hunting mammoths and such ^^ (so he uses his fist to demonstrate his power to the opponent) it sounds as reasonable as hilarious to me


----------



## pjk (Sep 10, 2007)

Some of those memory records are quite amazing. Looks like quite a fun hobby.

World RPS seems odd. I play RPS every once in awhile, but doubt I would go to a competition based on luck.


----------



## Jack (Sep 11, 2007)

It's not based on luck, did you read the website?


----------



## gillesvdp (Sep 12, 2007)

I think the only way to do that is to take a statistical approach and see if there is a significant difference in the probability of appearance of rock, paper and scissor.

If so, just adapt your strategy to maximize your chances of success and most importantly don't give this study to anyone else otherwise they will use the same strategy as you and thus ruin your advantage. ^^


----------



## pjk (Sep 13, 2007)

Jack said:


> It's not based on luck, did you read the website?



Yeah, but I think it is based on luck. Why do you not see it that way?


----------



## Jack (Sep 14, 2007)

I think that it is based on luck, but the website makes it sound like there is a bit of strategy to it. I came up with a strategy playing against my friend, becuase he always chose the same thing!


----------



## pjk (Sep 14, 2007)

Well, yeah, but it is mostly luck.


----------



## hait2 (Sep 25, 2007)

gillesvdp said:


> I think the only way to do that is to take a statistical approach and see if there is a significant difference in the probability of appearance of rock, paper and scissor.



as a matter of fact there is 
scissors is chosen less often (sub 30%, as opposed to the expected 33%) based on stats from wrps

the only reason i know this is i'm starting to create a computer rps algorithm for a contest here

for those that think it's luck, realize 2 things: a) humans are not random b) human belief to be unpredictable is one of the more predictable traits

feel free to try your hand against this:
http://www.essentially.net/rsp/index.jsp

6% is a big edge imo, especially with such a large sample size and complete absence of any and all physical cues and psychology involved 


..
.
.


ah who am i kidding, of course it's mostly luck


----------



## Joël (Oct 18, 2007)

Apparently not.. Computer VS. human, the computer seems to be able to win using an intelligent algorithm. Maybe Someone can figure out the algorithm and beat the computer .


----------



## Johannes91 (Oct 19, 2007)

It's not possible to get a better score than 50-50 (on average) against me. Knowing random numbers is useful.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 19, 2007)

But won't you eventually run out of them?


----------



## Johannes91 (Oct 19, 2007)

Hmm, good point.


----------



## KConny (Oct 31, 2007)

I tried the RPS and got 20 wins and 3 loses with an algorithm i just came up with. It's very easy. It follows a pattern bases in what the opponents take. The first round I'll take P, as hait2 said S is the least likely the opponent will choose. The first round is special, but here comes the pattern. I choose what would have made the previous round end in opposite result. And then you could continue with this, but i go with a lite version. I just alternate every round between what would have lost me the last round and what would have won me the last round.


----------



## hait2 (Nov 1, 2007)

KConny said:


> I tried the RPS and got 20 wins and 3 loses with an algorithm i just came up with. It's very easy. It follows a pattern bases in what the opponents take. The first round I'll take P, as hait2 said S is the least likely the opponent will choose. The first round is special, but here comes the pattern. I choose what would have made the previous round end in opposite result. And then you could continue with this, but i go with a lite version. I just alternate every round between what would have lost me the last round and what would have won me the last round.



just tried this and after about 25 rounds i started to lose every single one.. that algorithm is quite good at determining what pattern you use if you use one
nor did i have a 20-3 lead until then.. much more like a 50-50 split actually

;O


----------



## KConny (Nov 1, 2007)

Hmm, it worked good for me. But it probably works better on humans. 
I think it works because the opponent don't want to choose what would have killed him in the previous round. If you see a S you, on some level, don't want to choose P for the next round.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Nov 1, 2007)

I just tried the same strategy, and got the following results:
Total turns: 57 
You won: 25 
You lost: 16 
You tied: 16 

I think it's more likely that we're all using too small a sample to tell how well the strategy works. The program obviously isn't as good as you think about determining what pattern you use - hait2 was just unlucky.

I suspect the reason it works so well is that it appears to be a random strategy to the program (it can't detect the pattern), so you genuinely do as well as with a random strategy.


----------



## hait2 (Nov 3, 2007)

Total turns: 73
You won: 22 
You lost: 31 
You tied: 20

i lost the past 11. was 22-20. usually takes about this long for it to catch-on, sometimes less, sometimes a bit more
maybe im misunderstanding the strategy in question..

edit: i usually draw the line at roughly 10 losses in a row. that's where i considered the program to catch on to my strategy. i must've tried it at least 3 times now, and it always happens eventually. sometimes takes as little as ~25-30 moves, sometimes 50, longest was past 80 or so, but it still happened

i suppose the variance in the 'catching on' process is due to the fact that the strategy depends on what the computer chooses (if i understand it correctly..) and if the computer starts with a different strategy, it will adapt differently, and take longer or shorter depending on the start..


----------

