Fun movie. The AI in it was obviously impossible at the time. The Doctor who created it lamented that it never worked out the basic fact that tic tac toe is stupid because with an experienced opponent, you cannot win. This meant that it could not grasp that a nuclear war could not be won, so as you mention, the climax/applause line was something like 'interesting game Dr. Falken. The only winning move is not to play" and the audience, who always knew that, was properly jerked off.
Thing is, everyone knew that. It was the explicit strategy of MAD...mutual destruction was assured so the only winning move was not to play.
I just asked chatGPT if one could win tic tac toe and it got the answer right and in detail the first time. It also nailed my follow up question about whether there could have been a winner in a nuclear war between the US and Soviet Union.
Modest proposal : have adjustable height baskets, which at the start of each game are set a fixed height higher than the average height of all the players in the game.
Yes they are. But my idea of a 1-4 point gradient would incentivize shooting from the whole court. The lines could even be annually adjusted to make the present value of shots equal across the floor. This would allow a lot of different styles to flourish in the NBA.
Tic-tac-toe is an example of what in game theory (recombinant game theory, in the case of board games) is referred to as a "solved" game -- that is, whatever move one player makes, the next player's best strategy to win or draw is already known and there's no need to think through further moves. This doesn't mean that all combinations have been tried (which would be impossible), but it does mean there's no room left for true creativity. Checkers has been solved and Chess is definitely a terminal case. Luckily, Go, which has astronomically more possible moves than Chess, still has quite a bit of life in it.
By the way, although Deep Blue and AlphaGo are able to beat the top human Chess and Go players under tournament conditions, this does NOT mean those masterpieces of software have solved those two great holdouts quite yet -- just that they're stronger than any known carbon-based life forms.
Have you noticed how friendly the NBA players are after a game concludes?
These guys have all won the lottery, and they know it. Other than avoiding injury, the principal challenge in their lives is deciding on their next tattoo.
What if dunks also counted as three points? That would change things in a rather bruising fashion. They might need to add pads like hockey.
„You see, a number of years ago, a team of MIT data nerds crunched millions of numbers and came up with a revolutionary conclusion: a basket made from three-point range (23’9” diminishing to 22’0” inches in the corners) was worth 50% more than a basket from two-point range!“
Very droll, very droll. All they had to do was ask a Jack Black player.
(1) Drill holes at varying heights in the fence, so people young and old can all watch the game for free. Oh wait, that's another sport.
(2) Rename the game "Freaknik." I believe that proper noun is currently not being used otherwise.
(3) Scale the result of a beyond-the-arc basket according to how far ahead or behind is the team accomplishing it. E.g., if your team is ahead x points, have this field goal of yours count just for 2. (This would actually be an incentive to drive toward the basket, eating clock as you do.) But if your team is behind by x points, have it count for 4. And make the scale nonlinear, positive- or negative-exponential even. (Fan fave: an old-timey cinematic mainframe at each end of the court, one with lots of flickering lights, laboriously calculating the result of each basket, to numerous decimal places. It takes a second or two but all the players freeze and watch.)
(4) Best idea, already proposed by at least one other reader in these comments, is just get rid of the arc.
I assume the original purpose of the arc was to spread the field of play, i.e. might have been solving an earlier similar problem. Chesterton's three point line
Instead of moving the line back, you could cap the number of 3-pointers allowed per team per game. For example, each team is allowed up to, say, 12 3-pointers per game. After that, all shots behind the arc are only 2 points. That would force teams to ration their 3-pointers and develop more interesting tactics, as opposed to just ceaselessly chucking up 3 point shots.
Apparently there is the "Heave", usually a last second shot from somewhere around mid-court. Curry has the current record for Heave attempts and the record for most made Heaves in a season (2). You may think Heaves are a little guy thing but coming up fast is Nikola Jokić and looks like the Joker will break the all-time Heaves attempted record this year (not sure about made Heaves).
Anyway, if a Heave was worth say 5 points at any time of the game and 15 points if made "at the buzzer" (leave the rules up to the NBA) we would definitely see more Heaves.
I watched a single game of the last finals and was so disgusted by the Celtics playing that I haven't watched a minute of play this year despite the fact that I used to enjoy watching basketball quite a bit. I thought that the game couldn't get worse than James harden hunting for penalties but I was wrong. I think the league should try eliminating the corner 3 in the preseason as an experiment and go from there
The NBA is raking in money without much support from Republican and conservative voters due to international viewership, much of it Chinese, and black support of the game they dominate so thoroughly. NBA cities have a solid fan base with affluent blacks and liberal whites, at least they fill the arenas 41 games a season plus playoffs. The NBA is in better shape than it was in the 70s when half-filled arenas were fairly common. It is also helpful to the NBA that so many owners seem to be wealthy IT billionaires who can afford to lose money if attendance flags.
Basketball was once a game that valued lots of quick passes and lots of teamwork. Skilled players like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Elvin Hayes and Shaquille O'Neal would patiently work themselves into position and receive passes from a teammate. From what I've read, those days are all over. Centers are more likely to pop twenty-foot jump shots than work themselves into position for a short hook shot. Sports change, including basketball, and it's not worth it to complain too long about changes. For instance, Ty Cobb complained about the rise of the home run in the 20s and especially Babe Ruth but the game changed whether he liked it or not. Hell, had Cobb had the live ball of the 20s, he'd probably had hit 30 homers a season in pre-20s baseball. In modern basketball, Steph Curry and Damon Lilliard are in and Bob Cousy and John Stockton are out.
In the atomistic sports world, NBA basketball is a cultural and racially black game and that's not going to change anytime soon. Television ratings will also be limited but I don't think that matters because the NBA cash flow doesn't need much in television revenues.
Thanks for the information. What I should have said is that NBA franchises are almost play-things for the owners. In the old days, owners like Abe Pollin of the Bullets had the Bullets and the Capitals as his primary source of wealth.
Just as an experiment, I'd like to see an end to foul shots but go to two-minute penalties for fouls. The Lakers commit a foul, they play a man short against the Celtics. Five against four.
How about making a 3-pointer worth 2.75 points instead, or something like that?
Seems like a lot of counting for a sports fan.
Perhaps Anderson-Cooper could keep score.
Speaking of tic tac toe. “The only winning move is not to play.” WarGames 1983.
Fun movie. The AI in it was obviously impossible at the time. The Doctor who created it lamented that it never worked out the basic fact that tic tac toe is stupid because with an experienced opponent, you cannot win. This meant that it could not grasp that a nuclear war could not be won, so as you mention, the climax/applause line was something like 'interesting game Dr. Falken. The only winning move is not to play" and the audience, who always knew that, was properly jerked off.
Thing is, everyone knew that. It was the explicit strategy of MAD...mutual destruction was assured so the only winning move was not to play.
I just asked chatGPT if one could win tic tac toe and it got the answer right and in detail the first time. It also nailed my follow up question about whether there could have been a winner in a nuclear war between the US and Soviet Union.
Or you could have a four point line for really long shots and offer only one point for layups and dunks made right under the basket.
Dunks are fun.
Pretty easy to argue that dunks were the beginning of the end. The game would be much more entertaining if no one over 6’5” was allowed to play.
Modest proposal : have adjustable height baskets, which at the start of each game are set a fixed height higher than the average height of all the players in the game.
Yes they are. But my idea of a 1-4 point gradient would incentivize shooting from the whole court. The lines could even be annually adjusted to make the present value of shots equal across the floor. This would allow a lot of different styles to flourish in the NBA.
The obvious solution is to erase the three point line. That would restore the fluidity of the game: make your two points wherever you can make them.
Tic-tac-toe is an example of what in game theory (recombinant game theory, in the case of board games) is referred to as a "solved" game -- that is, whatever move one player makes, the next player's best strategy to win or draw is already known and there's no need to think through further moves. This doesn't mean that all combinations have been tried (which would be impossible), but it does mean there's no room left for true creativity. Checkers has been solved and Chess is definitely a terminal case. Luckily, Go, which has astronomically more possible moves than Chess, still has quite a bit of life in it.
By the way, although Deep Blue and AlphaGo are able to beat the top human Chess and Go players under tournament conditions, this does NOT mean those masterpieces of software have solved those two great holdouts quite yet -- just that they're stronger than any known carbon-based life forms.
Four points for a handstand on the rim. Give the little white gymnasts a chance.
Have you noticed how friendly the NBA players are after a game concludes?
These guys have all won the lottery, and they know it. Other than avoiding injury, the principal challenge in their lives is deciding on their next tattoo.
What if dunks also counted as three points? That would change things in a rather bruising fashion. They might need to add pads like hockey.
„You see, a number of years ago, a team of MIT data nerds crunched millions of numbers and came up with a revolutionary conclusion: a basket made from three-point range (23’9” diminishing to 22’0” inches in the corners) was worth 50% more than a basket from two-point range!“
Very droll, very droll. All they had to do was ask a Jack Black player.
Uhhhh...
(1) Drill holes at varying heights in the fence, so people young and old can all watch the game for free. Oh wait, that's another sport.
(2) Rename the game "Freaknik." I believe that proper noun is currently not being used otherwise.
(3) Scale the result of a beyond-the-arc basket according to how far ahead or behind is the team accomplishing it. E.g., if your team is ahead x points, have this field goal of yours count just for 2. (This would actually be an incentive to drive toward the basket, eating clock as you do.) But if your team is behind by x points, have it count for 4. And make the scale nonlinear, positive- or negative-exponential even. (Fan fave: an old-timey cinematic mainframe at each end of the court, one with lots of flickering lights, laboriously calculating the result of each basket, to numerous decimal places. It takes a second or two but all the players freeze and watch.)
(4) Best idea, already proposed by at least one other reader in these comments, is just get rid of the arc.
I assume the original purpose of the arc was to spread the field of play, i.e. might have been solving an earlier similar problem. Chesterton's three point line
That is a good follow-up question. What problem was the three-point line an attempt to solve?
Instead of moving the line back, you could cap the number of 3-pointers allowed per team per game. For example, each team is allowed up to, say, 12 3-pointers per game. After that, all shots behind the arc are only 2 points. That would force teams to ration their 3-pointers and develop more interesting tactics, as opposed to just ceaselessly chucking up 3 point shots.
I think this makes sense, limit them per quarter or something. The only other option is just eliminate three pointers altogether.
Apparently there is the "Heave", usually a last second shot from somewhere around mid-court. Curry has the current record for Heave attempts and the record for most made Heaves in a season (2). You may think Heaves are a little guy thing but coming up fast is Nikola Jokić and looks like the Joker will break the all-time Heaves attempted record this year (not sure about made Heaves).
Anyway, if a Heave was worth say 5 points at any time of the game and 15 points if made "at the buzzer" (leave the rules up to the NBA) we would definitely see more Heaves.
I watched a single game of the last finals and was so disgusted by the Celtics playing that I haven't watched a minute of play this year despite the fact that I used to enjoy watching basketball quite a bit. I thought that the game couldn't get worse than James harden hunting for penalties but I was wrong. I think the league should try eliminating the corner 3 in the preseason as an experiment and go from there
How about 2.5 points for a mid-range jump shot?
This might be a little out of the box for the current era, but how about they segregate the league and add white basketball to the paraolympics?
The NBA is raking in money without much support from Republican and conservative voters due to international viewership, much of it Chinese, and black support of the game they dominate so thoroughly. NBA cities have a solid fan base with affluent blacks and liberal whites, at least they fill the arenas 41 games a season plus playoffs. The NBA is in better shape than it was in the 70s when half-filled arenas were fairly common. It is also helpful to the NBA that so many owners seem to be wealthy IT billionaires who can afford to lose money if attendance flags.
Basketball was once a game that valued lots of quick passes and lots of teamwork. Skilled players like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Elvin Hayes and Shaquille O'Neal would patiently work themselves into position and receive passes from a teammate. From what I've read, those days are all over. Centers are more likely to pop twenty-foot jump shots than work themselves into position for a short hook shot. Sports change, including basketball, and it's not worth it to complain too long about changes. For instance, Ty Cobb complained about the rise of the home run in the 20s and especially Babe Ruth but the game changed whether he liked it or not. Hell, had Cobb had the live ball of the 20s, he'd probably had hit 30 homers a season in pre-20s baseball. In modern basketball, Steph Curry and Damon Lilliard are in and Bob Cousy and John Stockton are out.
In the atomistic sports world, NBA basketball is a cultural and racially black game and that's not going to change anytime soon. Television ratings will also be limited but I don't think that matters because the NBA cash flow doesn't need much in television revenues.
" It is also helpful to the NBA that so many owners seem to be wealthy IT billionaires who can afford to lose money if attendance flags."
FWIW, there are more finance/private equity owners than IT owners.
Thanks for the information. What I should have said is that NBA franchises are almost play-things for the owners. In the old days, owners like Abe Pollin of the Bullets had the Bullets and the Capitals as his primary source of wealth.
Just as an experiment, I'd like to see an end to foul shots but go to two-minute penalties for fouls. The Lakers commit a foul, they play a man short against the Celtics. Five against four.