StarCraft II article:Could someone elaborate.

Thanks.

I assume that they mean that when you add in things like the precise location and timing of clicks (I could have clicked one pixel to the right, or 1 millisecond later), the space of possible games blows up even faster than in Go.

I'm just guessing, but it feels more like it makes no sense to talk about the number of possible actions - Since it is an RTS (Real time strategy) game, the game is driven by continuous player input (call them actions - these correspond to mouse clicks and button clicking). A quick google search indicates that professional SC2 players are above 200 actions per minute, but what those actions are? A player could just click between two units indefinitely, or spam a single hotkey, or any of the numerous available actions / inputs.

So while not infinite (? I'm guessing - since there is a finite amount of available actions / inputs and given a set APM there should be some sort of upper bound for a set game length), it certainly makes no sense to talk about the game-space as number of permutations (like a Go game) - to me anyhow.

I suspect the number of actions is perfectly well defined (computers are ultimately discrete), but utterly impractical to try and estimate. There game takes place on a large board (>= 10000 x 10000 pixels), there are dozens of different pieces, you can have anywhere from zero to hundreds/thousands of each resource, the number of maps is some ridiculous number greater than 2 ^ (2 * 1000 * 1000)...

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Without a time limit, couldn't the theoretical limit defy definition?

Resources are limited I guess, but I could imagine defining what a branching factor is and proving an end state happens in some time is almost impossible.

I think that would give you a countably infinite number of games, but you'd be cycling through a finite number of states.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I wouldn't read too much into it. The way it's worded it doesn't sound to me that the author understood what he was saying. There are many things which can't being calculated and are finite.

In contrast to Go I assume that starcraft can go into a standoff or long cycles, where no player can get a decisive advantage. That's a difference to Go, where the number of legal moves gets smaller the more points on the board get occupied. Also number of legal moves at any stage (click that pixel. Or the pixel next to it. Or wait for a frame.) is way bigger than go's couple of 100ds.

_________________
If something sank it might be a treasure. And 2kyu advice is not necessarily Dan repertoire..

You are right to some extent, also, the difference is that in Go there are clear rules. Like you cannot play outside the board, while SC is rather a "wildcard" game - in a sense that you can do a lot of wacko things, as long as they happen "in the game"

Go is still better,IMHO

_________________
Stefany, web programmer

The comparison doesn't make much sense. A tiny 19x19 3 color animated gif has more possible states than GO (practically infinite when there is no limit on animation length but even if we prohibit repetition there are more possibilities due to the lack of rules). Even the number PI has more digits (again, infinite) than possible GO games there are.

The number of possible moves in go is at most 363. (361 intersections on an empty board + pass + resign.) But I guess that's not what they meant