[stargroup100]

So I decided to write a review here because I feel like this show is worth talking about personally. Initially, I wasn't interested either, as it did look like a .hack/SAO kind of thing, but someone mentioned to me a heavy usage of game theory, which I'm passionately studying, so I gave it a shot.

I just finished the first episode and already I have strong mixed feelings about this, but I do realize my opinions come from a vastly different direction than that of most other people, so I should first explain where I'm coming from.

For me, when I watch shows, one of the most important details, especially when it comes to science fiction, is consistency. And I mean conceptual consistency, a kind where a show avoids contradicting itself or saying things that don't make sense. For most people, they would feel strange if a character in a show does something that contradicts their nature without valid reason. It takes you out of the story, just as how a blatant mistake in a musical performance sticks out and is grating to listen to. For me, it goes further than just simple interactions, and I tend to see things in greater scope. I do understand that in fiction bending the rules of reality is the kind of the point, but what I'm trying to get at is that even if you were to make your own rules, you should be consistent within the rules that you have set up for yourself.

Now to actually comment on the first episode. I don't know if these count as spoilers but adding this just in case. Initially, the beginning seems like a good hook. It's a little far-fetched to imagine such players of legendary skill, but it doesn't seem totally impossible, considering that we don't understand the game mechanics and we give the benefit of the doubt for dramatic usage. But once I learned that the 4 in-game players are controlled by 2 people, and using their FEET as well as hands, and later on all 4 players by one person, I became skeptical. It's difficult to conceive of a game that fits the parameters given by the show that one could even plausibly achieve such a task.

Sora and Shiro later go on to describe chess. Considering the level of intelligence they have, I would expect them to have a good understanding of how the game works and therefore explain it correctly, but it's blatantly clear it's just the author (to his credit, probably doing his best) trying to make it sound smart and impressive. Basically, it's like trying to listen to someone talk about math incorrectly and then somehow expected to believe this person is a genius in mathematics.

"But... only if you understand all 10^120 possible states of the board!"
Firstly, 10^120 is the approximate game-tree complexity. The number of board states is far less, about 10^50. But, I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say this could even be a translation error.
Secondly, understanding the game fully is not about knowing the entire game-tree, but being able to understand various high-level strategic choices that will presumably cover the cases across the entire tree, the interactions of choices. One could argue that's basically what it's saying and that I'm nitpicking, but my point is that they could've done it more accurately and at the same time make it sound even more impressive. One of those things is "impossible" and not helpful, while the other allows you to "potentially" play a perfect game.
They also mention that there's a perfect solution that can't lose, and this is completely not true because chess isn't solved yet, and the complexity space is too great to be able to say anything. But I could dismiss this and say that they can assert this because they've solved chess. The problem with that is that if they really have solved the game, then there actually wouldn't be any competition whatsoever, because the outcome of the game had been decided before they even played, which would make the anime play out differently. Note how Shiro comments on the enemy player cutting off his own piece's advance. I understand that the author is trying to explain the difference between human and computer decision-making processes through example, but the way he presents it makes you question whether or not they really understand the game as well as he makes it seem.

Later on, they play one hand of poker for high stakes, and after what I already saw I had low expectations for the author, and thought he would make things worse by somehow assuming that one hand of poker would be any reliable determination of skill, but I was actually pleasantly surprised by how he handled that scene.
Poker is a determination of skill because over the course of many hands, the consequences of various decisions (fold, check, raise) accumulate enough such that the more skilled player consistently holds a lead. Poker with one hand is almost pure luck and meaningless in terms of skill, and to place such ridiculous bets on one hand is not a rationally sound decision by any means... unless you know you're going to win.
In retrospect, even if he was going to write out a scene constrained to poker rules, or even stretching it out a bit, I don't see how it could possibly go anywhere, so admittedly I shouldn't have been so dismissive prior to watching that scene.

Overall, however, I predict the author is going to do at least a fairly satisfactory job at intertwining game theory into his work for the masses, so I guess it isn't really a major issue and explains the high ratings (see Gurann Lagann). Unfortunately, it's going to be difficult for me, because I will be subconsciously aware of all of these inconsistencies few others notice, but I think it should be enjoyable nonetheless.