English-language Forums > Commander Discussion

Breaking down The Command Zone Stats

<< < (13/14) > >>

Lance28:
Highly unlikely, you see in chess there are only so many moves you can make and you're only ever playing against a single opponent (no players are removed from the game until a loss because there are only ever two players to start with) and both players start with the exact same pieces. If I'm not mistaken I believe that there was a study done showing that the player that goes first in chess has a slightly higher chance of winning a match because they can make more active moves than reactive ones (i.e. the best defense is a good offense strategy), but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, the point I'm making is that unlike in chess MTG has nearly infinite (if not infinite) possibilities due to the vast number of "pieces" (i.e. cards), combinations of cards, randomness and a much wider range of variables. You could make the "best move" assumption but again there are too many variables from game to game for that to be even somewhat practical because the best move for a blue deck will be vastly different from a green deck (assuming mono colors for simplicity sake) and in a multiplayer game those choices can have vastly different outcomes due to a wide range of variables; is there a red deck that wants the green deck to take out the blue deck? if so how might that other player react to what the blue player does in response to the green player attacking them for lethal? how many players can make responses and how many times can they respond in a single turn? will those responses negatively impact them in the long run or will they have a positive effect on the outcome for that player?
those are just a few examples of variables or questions about variables that have to be considered in MTG where as in chess there are obvious best moves to make for both players in any given situation. There are fewer variables in chess and much fewer outcomes and possibilities (granted there are still a crap ton of them).

I also want to point out that I'm not an expert in math of any kind (in fact I'm quite terrible at anything beyond the most basic of multiplication, division, addition and subtraction (I can do Pythagorean theorem and order of operations and that's about it)) so don't expect me to do any calculations, but I felt that this was probably just a common sense answer to the question (more or less) and I'm not saying that it can't be done with 100% certainty, I'm just saying that the likelihood of it being within the realm of possibility is insanely insignificant (like probably will never be possible). Its essentially a non-possibility because there are just too many variables unless you're basically a god or something. 

Aetherium Slinky:

--- Quote from: Red_Wyrm on August 01, 2019, 07:05:33 am ---Okay, this isn't really stats, but I have been wondering about this. Some dude or collection of dudes (and dudetts) was able to figure out exactly how many chess games were possible.
Is it possible to do this with MTG?

--- End quote ---
Sort of, but not really. You are right in saying that there are only a finite number of games that can be played if you exclude conditions that repeat, loop or recur. It's perfectly ok to make that assumption, because long sequences of repetitive actions can be shortcut, usually leading to a game that ends. There might be a few fringe strategies that rely on getting the deck in a particular order via shuffling but those are usually frowned upon and either lead to a draw or a loss due to slow play.

The problem here is magnitude. While it's possible to tie up all the loose ends through rulings you can't really do anything about randomness in shuffling. Players don't have complete information about the game (unlike in chess) so they have to make assumption about the best possible play. Defining said best play is a little bit hard. Let me illustrate:

* I'll make the best play based on all games I've ever played using the previous games as an average
* I'll make the best play based on all games I've ever played with this format, using previous games as an average
* I'll make the best play based on all games I've ever played against this deck arcetypeAnd so on. So while it's possible to tweak the rules so that nothing is infinite* you still can't grant players full information about the game. Now, you could say that decisions must be based on your knowledge of Magic alone, in which case you can get a finite set of criteria (because you've only played a finite number of games in your lifetime) but ultimately you can't do anything about the fact that often times in multiplayer for example we assess someone to be a higher threat due to their intelligence. That's not a criterion you could conclude from any finite set of anything, really.

Now here's the asterisk. There are also a few cards that pose a real problem: cards that force you to do something that is random and you can't choose to stop doing so. In an infinite loop either you, the opponent(s) or the judge usually have a chance to react somehow and the game ends. However, there are four cards that aren't guaranteed to ever resolve: Crazed Firecat, Mirror March, Okaun, Eye of Chaos and Zndrsplt, Eye of Wisdom. If you win every flip you have to keep flipping. These cards are truly infinite in the sense that there is no defined outcome, you cannot shortcut them and the rules don't allow you to exit the situation. The opponent could scoop but I don't know what the rules are for scooping or if you can ever justify conceding to be "best possible play". To me it sounds like the exact opposite. It'd also have to be 'faster' than instant speed because you're doing it during the resolution of another card and I'm not sure if the rules even recognise such a state. Except Panglacial Wurm. Panglacial Wurm is always fun at parties...

TL;DR
No. Rules, cards and criteria for decision making are too ill defined.

Morganator 2.0:

--- Quote from: Red_Wyrm on August 01, 2019, 07:05:33 am ---
Didn't you point out at somewhere in this thread that the games were all meant to be entertaining? And as you mentioned, watching people combo out isn't exactly fun or entertaining to watch. This is why combat damage was the deciding factor in most games. Isn't that some bias in the sample as they are all youtubers?

--- End quote ---

There is no bias in the sample, because it's taken from the population of games with YouTubers, which happens to have a low amount of combo decks.

Soren841:
That's generally a "bias" that is found throughout the entire format.. cEDH is unfortunately a minority

dokepa:

--- Quote from: Lance28 on August 01, 2019, 09:07:28 am --- If I'm not mistaken I believe that there was a study done showing that the player that goes first in chess has a slightly higher chance of winning a match because they can make more active moves than reactive ones (i.e. the best defense is a good offense strategy), but I could be wrong about that.   

Chess is not a good reference for MTG in any format . Gary Kasparov begs to differ with your quote :-) . He redefined c4 and it still doesn"t have an answer almost 40 years later . I just do not think the 2 will ever be compatible . But I do enjoy reading the responses ! :-D


--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page