Star Trek: The Next Generation
"Peak Performance"
Air date: 7/10/1989
Written by David Kemper
Directed by Robert Scheerer
Review by Jamahl Epsicokhan
As a result of the Borg threat (a nice little nod to continuity, that), Starfleet orders Picard and Riker to go head-to-head in a simulated battle as part of a new program to develop tactical skills among Starfleet crews, which Picard notes "is not a military organization." Along to observe is brilliant war strategist Kolrami (Roy Brocksmith), from a race of strategy masterminds that no one has dared challenge for centuries. In an observant detail of one sizing up someone else, Worf says the lack of any direct challenge essentially invalidates the reputation. (The theme of the show is sizing up people and situations.) Riker takes command of the derelict USS Hathaway to oversee a crew of 40, hand-picked from the Enterprise. He and his crew must improvise a way to compete in a battle where they are outmanned, outgunned, and, well, out-everythinged.
I enjoy stories about tactics and cunning, and this is a good one from TNG. One tactic involves Wesley playing the innocence routine "to shut down a science project" in order to steal some antimatter from the Enterprise. Another involves Worf creating an illusion that looks like something real (a Romulan Warbird) in an environment that's supposed to be all simulated.
There's also a subplot where Pulaski sets up a match of Strategema between Data and the arrogant Kolrami (Pulaski hopes to deflate Kolrami's ego), and Data ends up losing. This sends Data on an over-analytical search through his systems to find the "problem." The scene where Picard sets him straight is classic Picard — thoughtful, firm, reassuring.
The show's plot twist is that a real Ferengi ship shows up in the middle of the simulation and opens fire on the Enterprise, leading to a real test of improvised tactics. Armin Shimerman makes another appearance here as yet another Ferengi. (Another cameo I found amusing was by Glenn Morshower — the always reliable Aaron Pierce on 24 — as Ensign Burke.) Honestly, I could've done without the Ferengi altogether. The episode cunningly distracts us: By having the Ferengi interrupt the war games between Picard and Riker, the story doesn't have to offer up a resolution in which one of them actually wins. I for one am curious: Who would've won this battle simulation, and what would that have meant?
Perhaps the only satisfactory outcome would've been a draw. The story saves that for the Strategema rematch between Data and Kolrami. The payoff has Data saying, "I busted him up," which goes down (or at least should) as a classic Data line.
Previous episode: The Emissary
Next episode: Shades of Gray
Like this site? Support it by buying Jammer a coffee.
135 comments on this post
Tue, Jun 3, 2008, 3:35am (UTC -6)
Wed, Aug 29, 2012, 7:27pm (UTC -6)
It doesn't have the epic sweep of Best of Both Worlds; the punch of Measure of a Man. BUT it's just a damn fun episode and well-executed.
Thu, Nov 22, 2012, 8:00am (UTC -6)
Data's line ("I busted him up") and his shipmates cheering gave me a big smile. Go Data!
Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 9:57am (UTC -6)
Tue, Apr 2, 2013, 7:55pm (UTC -6)
Overall, though, this episode works for me so well because it's a chance to relax and spend time with the Enterprise crew without any grand threats (until the very end). In principle, that was true of "Manhunt" as well, but in this episode the characters have goals and seek to achieve them. The dramatic core of the Data subplot works quite well, and the fact that Data was roped into the Strategema game by Pulaski is a very nice cap to the Pulaski/Data arc over the season. Pulaski now sees him as an *admirable* machine, and that's why she wants to see him beat Kolrami, but once she realizes the damage to Data's self-confidence she genuinely regrets using Data as a tool to knock down Kolrami's ego and is genuinely concerned about him. Pulaski has fully seen Data as a person by "The Measure of a Man," but it's nice to see her warmth toward Data here; it's amusing to see *Picard* calling *Pulaski* (in addition to Troi) of imbuing Data with emotions he does not have. The solution proposed by the episode is a classic.
Anyway, this episode hits just the right notes, and allows us to spend time with all the senior staff, so it works very well as the last episode to the 2nd season and a capstone on the amount of work the season did on progressing the characters forward. 3 stars, *just shy* of 3.5.
(...what do you mean, this isn't the season finale? I have no idea what you are talking about.)
Sat, Apr 27, 2013, 8:05am (UTC -6)
Only two things bothered me: At first sight Kolrami was a bit too alien for my tastes, but I got used to him fast. At this point in the series, I was still worried about weird alien designs, as it usually meant bad episodes.
And the other thing is a bit bigger: The Ferengi. I don't think they needed to be there. It's a shame TNG came out way before the "Slice of life" genre was popular. Some episodes, like this one and (much later) Data's Day, are better off without a big evil lurking around or your classic Urgent Conflict Of The Hour(tm).
Still, this was a neat TNG moment and a Season 2 highlight. I bet everyone wanted this one to be the last of S2 because...
Fri, Oct 4, 2013, 10:22pm (UTC -6)
- Data's little pout went on too long. Hey Data, Riker did worse than you. So why does Picard listen to him? I don't mind that it happened, but it's a bit of a stretch that it would take 3 people to knock some sense into him.
- Why didn't Picard at least demand to the Ferengi to beam over the Hathaway's personnel and then let the Ferengi have the ship? Sure, it may not be completely honorable, and maybe the Ferengi wouldn't have accepted it, but it's at least another option.
But really, that's hardly a reason to ignore this episode. I don't think there is a problem that the Picard/Riker war was never resolved. I thought that they made it pretty clear through the episode that the Enterprise would win. Riker had two aces up his sleeve; we saw the first one which only created some damage. The second was an escape route. Yes, maybe he'd have found something else to come up with, but really, technological superiority is a big deal. It sounded like the war game was mostly about how long Riker would last, not whether he would win. So who cares that the game didn't end?
Instead, we got a good story and a good character piece. Finally, after two years of hearing that Riker is a great and wonderful leader, we get to see it. All it took was one skeptical alien, and one cool chess match. He had good moments with Geordi and Worf, and getting to see him scheme was great. This is really one of the best uses of Riker, and complements what we will see with Best of Both Worlds. Meanwhile, we see Pulaski promoting and vigorously defending Data, a lovely change from the beginning of the season. We see Wesley use his guile. We see Geordi having fun. And heck, it was a fun episode too. What's not to like?
It occurs to me that the Borg really should have caught on that something was up with Riker's plan to kidnap Locutus. After all, they had access to Picard's knowledge of Data's analysis of Riker. Of course, knowing the Borg, they would dismiss any personality aspect as irrelevent. Presumably, this was not on the writer's minds. But hey, it works anyway.
And as one more random aside, this is probably the most sinister that the Ferengi ever were. I guess they could have possibly been a serious species, if they weren't neutered so quickly. It seemed pretty odd actually seeing them as a legitimate threat.
Sat, Nov 16, 2013, 1:15pm (UTC -6)
Fri, Feb 14, 2014, 9:52pm (UTC -6)
Sat, Mar 29, 2014, 10:44pm (UTC -6)
Fri, Sep 5, 2014, 6:02am (UTC -6)
(1) Data loses to Kolrami at space chess (first of all) and then everyone is like, "Data, sometimes you just lose." Data is supposed to have computational speeds and memory of unfathomable limits. At a game of defined outcomes, with reaction speed as an additional emphasis, Data should objectively be able to handily beat anyone. The idea that he should just accept that he lost is absurd. It's a step from saying, "Data, don't worry if a person can calculate the first 10,000 digits of pi faster than you. Every dog has it's day." Then to compound that with the "big win" being that he had to adopt a strategy of drawing b/c he was worse at pursuing a winning strategy...smh.
(2) War games played where functionality is completely, irreversibly lost to affected areas. No failsafe, really? What if it affected life support systems? Or there was a medical emergency and you needed to use the transporter? Ooops, you just died playing a wargame?
(3) Warf comes up with "guile," which is 100% responsible for the strategic advantage and Riker gets all the credit...compounded with the fact that Warf's security codes maneuver works on a Farengi ship? Warf clearly needs a promotion and a crack at space chess.
(4) Why the hell even bother with the "let's take a chance on an untested 2s warp system to distract the Farengi for a few minutes and will probably kill us all" if immediately after that you just pull a "Warf the magician" act and everything is all better. End of episode = Shoehorned plot device.
(5) The above are all just basic internal consistency issues. How about actually treating the premise seriously for a second. The Enterprise, the most sophisticated ship in the fleet, goes up again a barely moving space dino whose secret weapon is a one-off sensor ploy and 2s warp. Here's a couple strategic options for the Enterprise, you tell me which makes sense: (1) Pull feints and maneuvers trying to figure out what the guy on his broke down bicycle is going to do. (2) Shoot them immediately, relying on the novel realization that going blow to blow, your arsenal would easily overcome their shields but not vice versa.
I don't know how this qualifies as "very good" or "classic." I still enjoyed it because even under the clunkiness, the premise and character can at least be interesting. But dang.
Also, kudos to TNG for making Kolrami look fat and shrew-faced. We don't want those bright Trek fans to misunderstand what he represents. Outward appearance MUST BE synonymous with one's personality and inner qualities.
Fri, Sep 5, 2014, 9:20am (UTC -6)
To point 1, as you acknowledge, there are defined outcomes. Our brains are just bio computers. I could be taught to play tic-tac-toe as well as Data. Why should Data feel bad if I beat him at tic-tac-toe sometimes. As Picard says... it's possible to lose without making mistakes.
I don't think Data played to a draw BECAUSE he knew he'd lose otherwise. I think he played to a draw because it was the only way a loss could be avoided 100% of the time. If both him and Kolrami were perfect and the game offers no advantage to whomever "starts" (if such a player exists) Data should be expected to win 50% of the time. But Data didn't WANT a 50/50 shot. Since he doesn't get tired I assume the plan was to draw indefinitely until Kolrami passed out. Now THAT is thinking outside the box.
Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 5:40am (UTC -6)
You're attempt to use the analogy of the brain as a biocomputer in this context is very improper. Yes, the brain can be looked at in the framework of a computer, but you're using this to drawn on the connotations of a machine computer (i.e. computational speed and precision) that do not actually apply. A simple scientific calculator will accurately compute the value of 7^22 in less than a second. Will a human brain? Hell no. That would take a LONG time. What's more, if you ask me to do this computation, there's a good chance I would make a mistake, even after having taking math classes for about 25 years. A calculator won't.
The level of complexity of space chess is in fact much greater than this simple example. The ability to compute all possible combination of outcomes in a game such as space chess would be the perfect showcase of Data's advantages compared to humanoids. There would objectively be no competition. Unless Kolrami was far, far, far far far far far far smarter than every second of the episode implied.
Also, your bit about tic-tac-toe. Imagine tic-tac-toe was determined not only by your moves but your speed. Data would win hands down, even if you had to go sequentially because even if it took you 1/10th of a second to respond to a move, it would take Data far less than a milliseoond. Alternatively, imagine that moves in tic tac-tac-toe didn't have to be sequential: a computer could fill in every space before you even entered in one.
Finally, your contention that Data planned to beat Kolrami by continuously drawing until Kolrama passed out and thereby lost is (besides being an absurd scenario for Data) explicitly wrong. Data was surprised when Kolrami stopped playing and he said he did not win "No sir, it's a stalemate!" Data did not either plan to win or see himself as having won, he pursued (and obtained) a draw. Yet still everybody is like "Yay, this walking super computer is able to tie this meatbag. It's amazing, you really showed him."
Your points don't serve you well...and honestly, making pseudo-intellectual claims about humans as bio-robots is just lame dude. Much like many early Star Trek episodes, the only way it seems smart is if you don't think about it at all.
Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 8:41am (UTC -6)
Alternatively, go play a Wii. I assure you that if you move the wand as fast as Data moves the wand the input you'd be sending to the system would be gibberish. Those things they had on their fingers might not work if Data moved at the speed of Data.
"Finally, your contention that Data planned to beat Kolrami by continuously drawing until Kolrama passed out and thereby lost is (besides being an absurd scenario for Data) explicitly wrong."
I don't mean literally passed out. I just mean that Kolrami would, eventually, get tired. The game doesn't seem to end, so Data's goal of playing to a draw seemed to be short termed. Unless he literally expected to play until Kolrami grew old and died I suspect the eventual plan was that Kolrami would get tired and slip up. The fact that he was surprised that Kolrami quit so "early" in the game (from Data's perspective) does NOT rule out such an end game. And the fact that you claim Data's long term plan was playing to a draw, when there is no evidence that this game CAN end in a draw is silly.
"Your points don't serve you well...and honestly, making pseudo-intellectual claims about humans as bio-robots is just lame dude. Much like many early Star Trek episodes, the only way it seems smart is if you don't think about it at all. "
Except humans ARE bio-robots and our brains do have computational speeds and such. I SPECIFICALLY used tic-tac-toe because YOU brought up games of defined outcomes. My point was that I personally could be taught to memorize every possible move in tic-tac-toe. SOME people can be taught chess. Maybe Kolrami's people have memories and recall speeds that far exceed my computational power. MAYBE Kolrami's people can perform calculations at the speed of the game's input! Refuting my point by calling it lame and then offering no counterpoint doesn't particularly serve you well here.... All I'm trying to point out here is that in a game of defined outcomes biological brains may be capable of memorizing all possible outcomes. There are people that start spouting out pi from very high digits in a ridiculously small amount of time and there are chess savants that can think more moves ahead than I could possibly imagine. There comes a point between input speeds and game limitations where thinking more moves ahead may not serve you.... particularly if you've memorize all the outcomes....
My point is just that you are arguing that this scene doesn't make sense when you have no idea how this game works, how it's input functions, how many moves ahead Kolrami can think and how many total possibilities his "bio computer" can be programmed for.
Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 8:44am (UTC -6)
h t t p ://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Strategema
"Data, after his first loss, did find a means to defeat Kolrami on his second try. To do so, Data took the unorthodox strategy of deliberately playing for a stalemate with the focus of blocking Kolrami's moves for an indefinite length of time. The game in question broke the record for duration and only ended when Kolrami forfeited the game in frustration, thereby conceding to Data the win. At the time of Kolrami's forfeit, Data and Kolrami had over 33,000 moves each."
You can't play this game to a draw, such a state does not exist. He was trying to stretch out the game indefinitely. To suggest that he doesn't know what that would do to a biological life form eventually is just preposterous.
Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 9:36am (UTC -6)
In Andrew's defense, this is the same Data that, a year before, couldn't figure out how to solve a Chinese finger puzzle.
Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 9:40am (UTC -6)
That WAS bad though.
Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 9:40am (UTC -6)
Wed, Sep 10, 2014, 11:17am (UTC -6)
@ Robert
Lol!
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 1:35am (UTC -6)
You're saying a stalemate isn't possible, simply as an assertion. You even say that my contention that it was considered a draw is "silly." Frankly, that's a bit baffling and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you haven't watched this ep recently. I'm telling you what Data explicitly said, "It's a stalemate." He said this twice with no one else saying anything to the contrary. Consequently, it would sure as hell seem it was a stalemate.
But beyond that, again, saying we our brains are biocomputers is disingenuous, because it's implying we behave in the same way in terms of computational systems and precision. We don't--not in the way that you're using this analogy. We do not behave with the straightforward mathematical algorithms, we make errors, and put simply we cannot mentally calculate the enormity of permutations in a game as simple as chess (compared to space chess). Or see my earlier example, of the relatively extremely simply example of calculating 7^22. A computer could do that in far less than a second, with a human it would be an exhaustive effort to compute this value in his head manually, it would be nearly impossible and take a long time.
You're saying some people can memorize or compute an impressive amount. Compared to me or you, agreed. Compared to a computer of the sophistication of Data, not even close. Just read a little bit about chess-playing computers and tablebases to see this. Currently, the best computer programs are given restricted number of tablebases (about 5-6 moves deep) in only the opening and the endgame and still the best grandmasters in the world cannot beat them in an even match (in fact, they are given advantages at the outset and still routinely lose). Data could calculate every permutation 50 levels deep. That is simply so far beyond human capabilities it's not funny. And as I said, TNG could certainly create a character of that level of intelligence, but as every second of the episode showed, Kolrami was not that character.
Finally, you make the point that there are limits to how fast data could be entered in to the system and say Data just can't move that fast. The issue is not the speed of input, first of all, it's reaction time and calculation time (and really, sheer feasibility), which I haven't made clear to you by now, then I give up. But even so, Data's super-physical attributes would suggest he probably could move his hands faster. Also, as space chess is in many ways a race, the device used would presumably be able to accept inputs at speeds at least slightly greater than the speed at which any of its user base can enter them, otherwise you'd have to really question it's suitability to the game. Certainly, there is no evidence that either player was restricted by it's ability to read inputs at the speed they could enter them.
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 9:36am (UTC -6)
Here is the actual script
"KOLRAMI: Bah! (throws off the controls)
DATA: Why have you suspended the game?
KOLRAMI: Because this is not a rematch. You have made a mockery of me.
(Kolrami exits in high dudgeon)
RIKER: Data, you beat him!
DATA: No, sir. It is a stalemate. "
Data was calling the game a stalemate because he had brought the game to a stall (blocking every advancement opportunity for Kolrami). But the game did not end, Kolrami quit. It was obvious. I didn't say a stalemate wasn't possible, I said a DRAW wasn't possible. This was, per the episodes description, the longest game ever of Strategema. If the longest game ever could have gone on even longer (Data seems surprised when he ends the game) it is obvious that a draw is not a state that is programmed into the game.
Moreover, you originally said that my interpretation of Data's plan was explicitly wrong. I ask you again to explain. If there is no draw condition in the game (which, if you can't see that as obvious I guess we'll just have to stop discussing it... the idea that the game will stalemate out in 50k moves when 32k didn't do it is still silly) and Kolrami quitting was something Data did not expect.... there is only one possible alternative. He was attempting to wear the man down. Or play until the heat death of the universe. Whichever you like.
"You're saying some people can memorize or compute an impressive amount. Compared to me or you, agreed. Compared to a computer of the sophistication of Data, not even close."
Agreed of course. But without knowing how many possible moves Strategema has I cannot, with 100% certainty say that Kolrami cannot memorize all of the moves. If I can memorize every permutation of tic-tac-toe who is to say that some biological organism doesn't have the memory capacity to memorize Strategema. We don't even know how to play Strategema!
"And as I said, TNG could certainly create a character of that level of intelligence, but as every second of the episode showed, Kolrami was not that character."
I agree Kolrami isn't that brilliant in the context of an episode... but brilliance and memorization capacity are not the same thing.
"The issue is not the speed of input, first of all, it's reaction time and calculation time."
I do agree here. My point about input maximum capacity is that we have seen episodes where Data moves so fast the screen blurs and then you said "imagine that moves in tic tac-tac-toe didn't have to be sequential: a computer could fill in every space before you even entered in one". I was just pointing out that it's unlikely the input would be able to handle Data clearing the board at "blur speed" before Kolrami could even get a move off. The little finger inputs would just be confused.
As to some of your other points...
1) Data should know the exact max speed of input of a Strategema system and increase/decrease his hand speed to give him a maximum number of per second inputs. This would give him an advantage over Kolrami. Unless of course the maximum number of moves is something a human could do. I don't know for sure.
2) Yes, Data should be able to react faster than Kolrami. Even if Kolrami has every permutation measured, Data should still probably have a cognitive advantage.
But is that to say that Data could NEVER lose? What if there was a 10% chance of Data losing. That still makes him 10x better than Kolrami. Kolrami against a Kolrami duplicate would likely win 50% of the time. Maybe Kolrami vs Data would only win 10% of the time. And maybe that's how Data lost. And perhaps Data was trying his new strategy because there was no other way to ensure 100% that he would not lose.
I'm not saying that there aren't holes here, I just don't know that, with knowing nothing about the game or the mental capabilities of Kolrami's people that I can say with 100% certainty that Data should not have been able to lose. You say that "we make errors", speaking of us as humanoids here (I assume, else Kolrami would be exempt). Well, why is it implausible that, in their first game, Kolrami made no errors.
THAT was the whole point of the story, that neither one of them made any mistakes and Data lost.
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 10:23am (UTC -6)
Well, partially, yes, but I think the real point of the story was to teach Data a lesson about humanity. I'm sure if Droopy Dog and Data played a dozen games, Data would have won at least once, but that wouldn't have made an impact on him or been interesting to watch. What Data did (as Robert pointed out, a employing a strategy which would guarantee that Data could never *lose*, though he couldn't technically *win*) was manage to frustrate Droopy into quitting, thus knocking him of his smug highhorse. This notion of cutting him down emotionally is a very human trait--vindictiveness, resentment, pleasure at the misery of one's enemies--and that's what Data learns here, and that's the point of the story.
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 10:52am (UTC -6)
But it is important to learn that sometimes you just lose, even if you make no mistakes. Accepting a loss is a valuable lesson. So I do think that Data learned the value of competition (the entire episode was framed around competition of one sort or another), but I also think he learned how to lose. Which is also interesting. And human.
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 11:33am (UTC -6)
Regardless of all that, I'd like to present Dave & Robert with... the Jammer Nerd Award of the Week, for Outstanding Nerdiness Above and Beyond the Call of Duty.
The award is given, in your case, for 1) the Supreme Analysis of a game no one knows the rules of, and 2) the Superior Profiling of an Alien of the Week™ which no one knows anything about, or will ever see again, for that matter.
Yours is quite simply outstanding work, gentlemen! Thank you for being a radiant deflector array for us all to follow! It's people like you that make Star Trek fandom what it is. We, the lesser nerds, salute you! ;)
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 1:00pm (UTC -6)
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 1:29pm (UTC -6)
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 2:03pm (UTC -6)
Robert, I can't believe the stalemate/draw argument has gone this far. If you are familiar at all with what a stalemate is (if not, just google it, google handily provides you with this definition), then you know a stalemate IS a draw. There's no distinction. All your handwaving doesn't change that. Data did not win, he drew the match.
To your other points, we do indeed not know the full rules of space chess. But by just looking at the movements, it's clear the number of permutations (especially when it goes to a vast number of levels) is intended to be even greater than that of chess. That's the idea: take super speed chess and make it even more complex.
And to your point that memory and speed are not synonymous: that is of course true, but it's not a feat of sheer memorization, it's also calculation and adjustment at a staggering rate. In order for Kolrami to accmomplish a draw, his computational speed and memory would have to be comparable with Data, which would imply a level of functional intelligence far^far greater than what he has shown.
Also, about input speeds. The input speeds do not need to be as fast as Data can enter them, they only need to be slightly faster than Kolrami can. If the input speeds can not match basic humanoid hand movements speeds, again I contend that the device is not suitable to the game (and logically therefore, would not be the device they choose to use).
So again, yes, it wants to say that you can lose without making a mistake. But that does not fit the scenario they've devised whatsoever. Data SHOULD win.
Also, it's ridiculous to say that because Data might make errors he should pursue a draw versus Kolrami. Because Data uses precise algorithms to calculate the permutations, it would take a system malfunction (which is what Data was worried about) to make any mistake. Even in this context, however, there is no gain to pursuing a draw versus a win. It would imply he is fundamentally unable to calculate the permutations correctly. Moreover Data, after the final game, says that this was not the case. He just couldn't best Kolrami, only pursue a tie (the principal absurdity).
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 2:23pm (UTC -6)
I never said that. I said he was playing to block Kolrami INSTEAD of playing to win because if he played to win he could lose WITHOUT making mistakes.
As to the tie... Mr. Data, would you please enlighten us on the meaning of stalemate.
DATA : Gladly sir. A stalemate, as defined by Google's dictionary is "a situation in which further action or progress by opposing or competing parties seems impossible". Synonyms being deadlock, impasse, standoff...
Thank you Mr. Data, that's enough. And the definition of draw?
DATA : A game that ends with the score even, a tie. Since Strategema is not space chess, my mention of the word stalemate implied deadlock, not a game ending tie. Strategema is not chess and a game ending tie is not a possibility in Strategema. Strategema will go on forever. Space chess is what you play on the 3D chess board. Strategema is about lighting up cubes. Space connect 4, if you will. Andrew's original premise is flawed.
Thank you Mr. Data.
I will agree with you that it's likely that the input can accept input faster than Kolrami can give it, in which case Data would be at a significant advantage. That said, we cannot say this with absolute certainty. To quote my recent award "The award is given, in your case, for 1) the Supreme Analysis of a game no one knows the rules of, and 2) the Superior Profiling of an Alien of the Week™ which no one knows anything about, or will ever see again, for that matter."
DATA : You busted him up sir.
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 2:33pm (UTC -6)
stale·mate (Oxford English Dictionary): a position counting as a draw, in which a player is not in check but cannot move except into check.
stalemate (Merriam webster):
: a contest, dispute, competition, etc., in which neither side can gain an advantage or win
: a situation in chess in which a player cannot successfully move any of the pieces and neither player can win
stalemate (ˈsteɪlˌmeɪt - Collins)
n
1. (Chess & Draughts) a chess position in which any of a player's possible moves would place his king in check: in this position the game ends in a draw
2. a situation in which two opposing forces find that further action is impossible or futile; deadlock
Data correctly did not consider that he won the game because he forced a stalemate. Where stems the perplexing celebration that their relative "victory" was by forcing a draw when Data, barring malfunction, should wipe the floor.
And yes, we can certainly not say anything with certainty about portrayals in TNG. But for a game whose focus is on speed to have a input speed ceiling below what people are capable of (in a world defined with a relative void of technological limits to it's machinery or economic restraints on their implementation) would be it's very own TNG fail. But again, this is ancillary to the fact that Kolrami could not compute the permutations himself at anything near the limit at which he could move.
Data should win. I really can't see how there's this need for this much explanation over what should be a fairly obvious fact.
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 2:52pm (UTC -6)
Dear lord, that's a chess definition. You can keep saying space chess as much as you want, it's not chess. The definition being used in the episode is deadlock, no matter how stubborn you want to be!
"a contest, dispute, competition, etc., in which neither side can gain an advantage or win"
Yes, this is what was happening. Data was playing to a condition where neither of them could win. There still was no indication in the episode that the game could actually END like that (without Kolrami quitting). Of course that'd require you to discuss the actual episode and Strategema instead of chess! Facts - We see 3 games of Strategema. One ends in a slaughter, one is a good game, and the other goes on longer than any Strategema game EVER, and only ends when one person quits. There is not 1 iota of evidence to support your conjecture that this game can END naturally in a tie, which must mean that Data had an eventual plan to win after Kolrami passed out from exhaustion. In order to prove your point you'd need to give 1 shred of evidence that any of the rules we are aware of claim that this is not true. But you can't. Because there is none.
"But for a game whose focus is on speed to have a input speed ceiling below what people are capable of (in a world defined with a relative void of technological limits to it's machinery or economic restraints on their implementation) would be it's very own TNG fail."
The focus is on being strategic quickly. That's not the same as a race. It may be that 5 moves a second is BLAZINGLY fast for this game (imagine making 5 moves a second in chess) and that Kolrami is capable of that. Data would obviously be capable of 30x that... but only if the input accepts such. Again, without knowing anything about the game, all you can do is guess. Since the episode supports that Data can make no mistakes and still lose I have to assume that there is something inherent to the game that makes Data going 1000 moves a second impossible.
"Data should win."
I never actually disagreed with you on that. I've just said that given the variables we don't know for certain that Data should win 100% of the time. And I stand by that!
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 2:54pm (UTC -6)
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 3:40pm (UTC -6)
a) as has been repeatedly pointed out, we don't know a damn thing about how Strategema works, and
b) the reason it's in this story is to serve as a mirror to the A-plot with RIker,
I think it's fair to assume that the game involves an element of improvisation and non-linear thinking (like Riker's plan did), elements for which no amount of computational speed could compensate. If the story had tried to explain what these elements were, it would become very tedious and probably not make any sense (like when they try to explain how the holodeck works).
Given that chess was meant to be as much an allegorical instruction tool about (feudal) politics as it was a game of militaristic strategy, I think there is probably an element of nuance in Strategema for which Data's brain (programmed as it was by a human being) cannot account, at least not at this stage of his development. Devising his ultimate strategy of stalemate (or draw, or whatever we want to call it), was in fact a step in his evolving the capacity for such improvisation. Is it a perfect analogy? Hell no, but I think we can accept what they were going for here without getting our panties in a twist over how a fictional game works. Troi beating Data at chess, on the other hand, is fucking ridiculous.
@Andrew :
"Data correctly did not consider that he won the game because he forced a stalemate. Where stems the perplexing celebration that their relative 'victory' was by forcing a draw when Data, barring malfunction, should wipe the floor. "
The victory was in deflating Droopy's ego, thus showing that he was wrong in his assumption that he could *beat* Data. True, Data winning because of his technological wizardry would have accomplished the same thing, but it wouldn't have required Data to think outside the box, thus adding definition to his character.
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 3:43pm (UTC -6)
The parallels to chess are intentional, as here where neither side has become capable of winning. The game is considered to end at this point, when there are no fruitful moves remaining. The statements from both Kolrami and Data indicate this recognition that the game ended as a stalemate (Kolrami says it's no longer a game, Data disagrees with Riker when he says he won, clarifing that it was a stalemate). Each recognize that ending a game isn't tantamount to losing if there is no other way for either side to resolve the game. Consequently, Kolrami did not lose and Data avowedly did not win, rather it's implied that he pulled off an upset by achieving a draw.
Again, see all points above as to why this should not be considered an upset and it's ridiculous that Data can't win. Yes, 100% of the time, barring his malfunctioning or Kolrami being unimaginably brighter than portrayed. The advantages identified are decisive and categorical.
Finally, again: possible that Strategema could not accept input speeds any faster than Kolrami can both react and calculate the best move, but utterly ridiculous that this would be the case. It would be baffling as to why they would use such equipment for this purpose when they have a lack of any technological or financial constraint.
Also, there's definitely been far too much discussion about this. If I can't convince you of what I'm saying, then one or both of us has got problems.
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 4:00pm (UTC -6)
LOL
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 4:03pm (UTC -6)
I do agree that it is does not seem that I will be able to convince you that Strategema does not tie in a stalemate.
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 4:05pm (UTC -6)
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 4:06pm (UTC -6)
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 4:08pm (UTC -6)
They agreed that the game ended in a stalemate because it was deadlocked at the moment of one of the players quitting. That does NOT mean that the game ever would have stopped on it's own and declared stalemate. I actually am starting to think you understand what I'm saying and are just trolling me... but I'm not sure. Elliott? Anybody? Thoughts?
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 4:43pm (UTC -6)
But even if you don't how understand HOW a stalemate is reached, simply understanding the meaning of stalemate and the fact that the characters acknowledge the game ended in stalemate is sufficient (and by Data, not a win "No sir," he says") to see that the game ended in a draw and not a win by Data.
Please beef up your vocabulary.
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 5:27pm (UTC -6)
I think Robert is correct about the speed factor. There must be something inherent in the game that makes absolute speed useless after a certain point. For example, maybe certain of each player's moves have to correspond to certain of the opponent's--but the opportunity to make any move at all can close (according to other factors of the game state) if you're not quick. In such an arrangement it would be to each player's advantage to play as fast as he could, but the game as a whole still couldn't go faster than its slower side.
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 5:40pm (UTC -6)
Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 5:47pm (UTC -6)
Data may have played with a different strategy the second time around, but at the end of the game it was Pig Face who clearly forfeited when he took off his gloves and stormed off.
It's no different than when Kasparov played Deep Blue.
Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 12:12am (UTC -6)
Riker: "Data, you beat him."
Data: "No sir, it is a stalemate."
Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 12:17am (UTC -6)
Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 7:18am (UTC -6)
Yes, Data calls it a "stalemate," because that was the condition of the game at the time; neither player had met, or was approaching, the formal condition for winning (whatever that might be). This is just Data being modest and precise as always.
Fri, Sep 12, 2014, 9:22am (UTC -6)
@Peremensoe - Agreed. Andrew is hung up on definition of stalemate in chess... where a game is a draw due to both people deciding the game cannot continue. I just don't see that to be the case here. Data could continue forever in theory, Kolrami cannot. I have to assume (in absence of anything else) that it was the plan. In this case Data meant stalemate as a synonym for deadlock. The state of the game when Kolrami quit. As you said, he was being modest and precise.
I'm happy (if there is anything left to say... which I doubt) to continue to talk to anybody else about this episode, but I'm done talking to Andrew at the very least.
In his universe words have only one clear cut definition "Please beef up your vocabulary" and Data could only have possibly meant one thing by stalemate (even though they hardly agreed to quit due to deadlock, I keep pointing to Data being surprised that Kolrami quit and Andrew keeps ignoring that).
And then when you don't agree with the particular definition he has selected for a word to mean he becomes belligerent, angry and insulting.
"I retract all the statements I made about TNG insulting the intelligence of its viewership"
"If I can't convince you of what I'm saying, then one or both of us has got problems."
This is usually a friendly board, so at this point, having said this next thing as my last comment towards Andrew I will refrain from posting to his comments.
It's totally cool if Strategema in your head is a game that Data can't lose and if everyone in the 24th century understands stalemate to mean tie, but it's also totally cool if I think stalemate meant the game wasn't going anywhere (deadlock), that Data was being modest and precise (good wording) when he said he didn't win (because he did not actually end the game in a victory... yeT), and that there could be reasons why Data could "make no mistakes and still lose" a game that we know nothing about. We are not, as Elliott pointed out, in Troi vs Data at chess levels of WTF here. It's fine if you just can't believe that the loss was possible or that Data had a plan for victory (which I believe he did), but there is certainly room for another interpretation of events. Chill out.
Sun, Sep 14, 2014, 4:56pm (UTC -6)
“There's no such thing as "ending on it's own" in this scenario, that's why a stalemate is called. When a game reaches the point where neither play can defeat the other, it is considered a stalemate and the game is over (and a draw, again see definition of stalemate: neither side wins). In such scenarios, stalemate does not preclude being able to move additional pieces, rather it is precisely because you could ENDLESSLY move pieces with no resolution. This is the exact scenario in Peak Performance.
But even if you don't how understand HOW a stalemate is reached, simply understanding the meaning of stalemate and the fact that the characters acknowledge the game ended in stalemate is sufficient (and by Data, not a win "No sir," he says") to see that the game ended in a draw and not a win by Data.
Please beef up your vocabulary.”
Well, why don’t we beef up our vocabulary, then, and find out what a stalemate actually is?
“STALEMATE is a situation in the game of chess where the player whose turn it is to move is not in check but has no legal move. The rules of chess provide that when stalemate occurs, the game ends as a DRAW.“
And what exactly is a draw then in chess?
“In chess, a DRAW is the result of a game ending in a TIE. Usually, in tournaments a draw is worth a half point to each player, while a win is worth one point to the victor and none to the loser.
For the most part, a draw occurs when it appears that neither side will win. Draws are codified by various rules of chess including STALEMATE (when the player to move has no legal move and is not in check), THREEFOLD REPETITION (when the same position occurs three times with the same player to move), and the FIFTY-MOVE rule (when the last fifty successive moves made by both players contain no capture or pawn move). A draw also occurs when neither player has sufficient material to checkmate the opponent or when no sequence of legal moves can lead to checkmate.”
What was it again you wrote, Andrew?
”[...] stalemate does not preclude being able to move additional pieces, rather it is precisely because you could ENDLESSLY move pieces with no resolution. This is the exact scenario in Peak Performance.”
Yes, this is the exact scenario in Peak Performance: they could endlessly move pieces with no resolution.
And no, as we have just seen, that is NOT a stalemate by any chess definition. In a stalemate, one of the sides has no legal move. Robert was thus right about Data's use of the word "stalemate", and you, Andrew, were wrong.
So to quote you again, "But even if you don't how understand HOW a stalemate is reached, simply understanding the meaning of stalemate" should now have settled the matter.
Need I remind you of your last sentence in the comment I quoted?
Sun, Sep 14, 2014, 5:54pm (UTC -6)
I think you meant to end with "And you, sir, can suck on that."
Sun, Sep 14, 2014, 8:29pm (UTC -6)
Queen to Rook 4.
Mon, Sep 15, 2014, 8:43am (UTC -6)
Well done sir, and rather ironic given your name!
Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 9:29pm (UTC -6)
Wed, Jan 21, 2015, 9:17am (UTC -6)
Was it an actual win, or a tie?
Wed, Jan 21, 2015, 9:25am (UTC -6)
Wed, Jan 21, 2015, 10:47am (UTC -6)
Wed, Jan 21, 2015, 7:00pm (UTC -6)
In chess, a stalemate occurs as a final conclusion to the game. It's forced BY THE RULES. One way to have a stalemate is if both players repeat the same move three times.
In the Startrek episode, this is not the case. Data is indeed not "playing to win", but the rules of the game evidently do not allow for a stalemate. Look, people, it's THIS simple:
The alien guy (out of Total Recall among other things) LOST. He lost because he had to give up. The machine's (Data) perfect Stamina ended up being the critical factor. And if you know chess, you will also know Stamina is a factor in success.
If the Trek episode ended with the game itself declaring a tie because of "repeated moves" or something, then yeah, it would be a stalemate. This is NOT a stalemate situation - it's just the android playing NOT TO WIN and knowing he can force the other person to GIVE IN. Stalemate in chess is a RULE. Giving in is LOSING, even in chess.
Is that clear enough?
Wed, Jan 21, 2015, 7:14pm (UTC -6)
Data is different, of course (and the writers ignore that), because he has a neural net and is not just some CPU. So yes, it's more far fetched to think he would lose, but that misses the point of the episode- The instinct vs computerization. We don't know the rules of the game, so we have to imagine that it's something an android struggles with. Just like modern computers with Go.
Wed, Jan 21, 2015, 7:46pm (UTC -6)
Read this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_%28game%29#Computers_and_Go
Sat, Jan 31, 2015, 2:30am (UTC -6)
If you play chess, on the hard setting, against a computer, the way to always tie is turn of the machine?
So troll guy tells Worf to turn off Data with the switch on his body.
Data loses?
Anyone?
Sat, Jan 31, 2015, 2:51am (UTC -6)
Kolrami walked away, so he did not win.
Data states "In the strictest sense, I did not win"
Therefore Kolrami and Data did not lose either, hence a DRAW or TIE.
Then Data says "I busted him up".
This statement is only to appease the crowd. Data did not "bust him up" he simply cheated.
A human can do this. Imagine I'm playing chess with a grandmaster. Most likely - I would lose. But, if I walked away from the board after the first move, they may say I lose by default.
However, by walking away, I did not lose because I claim I was never checkmated.
Kolrami = Sore Player
Data = Cheater
P.S. - If - in the strictest sense Data did not win, Data is claiming he sorta won.
P.S.S. - If the Borg appeared outside, Data would have to leave the game. Kolrami = Winner
Fri, Feb 27, 2015, 1:53am (UTC -6)
Sun, Mar 22, 2015, 4:52am (UTC -6)
Wed, May 13, 2015, 12:12pm (UTC -6)
People have a serious misunderstanding of computers here. When a computer plays chess, it computes its movements in advance. Those who said that the computer "does not consider board position" are incorrect. It in fact considers various outcomes as "good" or "bad". Generally, when utilizing proper strategy, the computer attempts to "minimize" the "maximum" outcome for the opponent. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax In this way the computer will select its next move based on all future movements. This is what chess grandmasters can do. What they can do that computers can't is ignore obviously bad moves. Sometimes the computer won't recognize this, and will waste computational cycles calculating something that it doesn't need to which, combined with a time limit, can allow the human player to win. As computers have become faster and algorithms (made by humans) became smarter, this advantage is basically gone and will continue to shrink.
There should be no functional difference between Data "playing to win" and "playing to tie", because Data should be playing to generally minimize his opponent's best outcome assuming perfect play. With an imperfect opponent, Data's advantage is greater.
Some people mentioned Tic-Tac-Toe above. Like Checkers, Tic-Tac-Toe is "solved". When both players play optimally, the result is a draw. A computer (with the correct programming) cannot lose at Tic-Tac-Toe or Checkers. However, a sufficiently knowledgeable human can play them to a draw. The idea that the alien guy can even play Data to a draw in a game of dexterity and strategy is patently absurd, let alone the idea that he can thrash him first time.
Wed, May 13, 2015, 2:53pm (UTC -6)
"There should be no functional difference between Data "playing to win" and "playing to tie", because Data should be playing to generally minimize his opponent's best outcome assuming perfect play. With an imperfect opponent, Data's advantage is greater."
I'm not sure this is correct. Here is a set of rules for watching things like this.
1) If there is a PLAUSIBLE answer (ie not reaching/fankwanking) that makes the writers correct, this is the answer. The assumption should be that the script is correct and you work backwards from there... else.... why are we watching the show? A nit or a plothole is one thing, but if the script can make sense when looked at a certain way (and that way does not involve shoving your head up your rectum) then that is the correct way to look at it.
2) If you do not agree with 1 there is no point in continuing. If you do agree then the script assumes....
a) There is a strategy game that is endless or nearly so. Data states "Theoretically, I should be able to challenge him indefinitely." to ME that does not sound like a game with a built in end condition (in chess there is an end condition known as stalemate that kicks in after a certain number of moves of nothing happening).
b) Something about this game limits the number of moves per minute to something that a humanoid could reach the maximum moves on... or that having endless moves offers no benefit. On my Nintendo I had to wait until Mario landed to jump again. Data's ability to smash the button into dust would not assist him in making Mario jump more often. Since we've seen Data move so fast he blurs we have to assume this.
c) There is a way to play to a stalemate and this strategy is different than playing to win. How do I know this? The script says so. You seem to take issue with this. I'm not sure why. Since we do not have the rules the advantage goes to the writers. Imagine a game where to score a winning blow you need to advance one of your pieces into your opponents territory but doing so means you cannot guard your own territory with 100% accuracy. Maybe Data took a gambit with an incredibly high chance of victory and Kolrami, instead of trying to block it, took an incredibly high risk/high reward gambit of his own. IE - he played illogically and screwed Data. Data later rewards him by playing illogically himself and taking no openings at all, making it impossible for either to win.
Is such a game impossible to exist? Only if your imagination prevents you from imagining it!
The only thing I take issue with is Troi and Pulaski having to cure his bruised ego. He should be aware enough of probability to know that whatever gambit he took caused him to have a % chance to lose. Although again, giving a nod in favor of the script making sense it's possible that he was not upset he lost but instead upset that his strategical processors did not anticipate the loss as being possible because he assumed Kolrami would never do what he did. Perhaps he was more worried that a humanoid opponent surprised him.
Thu, May 21, 2015, 9:10am (UTC -6)
It all starts with the opening scene between Picard, Riker and Kolrami in the Observation Lounge. Picard's line that Starfleet is not a military organization just bugs the hell out of me. If it's not a military, then why in the world were Kirk and company always called on to perform military operations and why are Picard and company so often shown doing similar things?
I think SF Debris summed it up perfectly in his review of this episode: "Let's be adults here - you have a ship full of weapons, working with government authority, that has military ranks, military style protocols, which comes to defend systems from military threats. You are personally armed with legal weapons. Your government has no other organization that is called, or is like a military in any way what-so-ever. And, if you fail to follow through on your 'duty,' you're court-martialed - a word which means 'military court.' Pretending that Starfleet is not a military is like pretending that Patrick Stewart is not bald."
Saying that this isn't a show about military things is disingenuous at best and downright stupid at worst. We have an episode here that is about improving combat tactics for people who aren't in the military?
And to this the fact that every character, not just Kolrami, is arrogant in the extreme, and I'm not sure who to root for.
The only 'good' thing this episode has going for it is its depiction of the Ferengi (never thought I'd say that in early TNG). They not the laughable failures of "The Last Outpost" and "The Battle." They're shown as semi-competent adversaries, even if they're still over-the-top (I AM BRACTOR! LEADER OF THE FERENGI ATTACK VESSEL KREECHTA!)
3/10
Thu, May 21, 2015, 11:08am (UTC -6)
Yet another example of early-era TNG smugness (if I had to guess, I'd say Roddenberry demanded the line when he heard about the wargames plot), but it doesn't have to be irritating. Instead of taking it at face value, as a definitive statement about the nature of Starfleet, just assume Picard is an unreliable narrator. This, and his pronouncements about the Federation economy, are his opinions, not shared by all. Perhaps these opinions were the basis of his falling-out with his father. Thus, when he insists Starfleet is non-military, he's not telling *us*; it's an echo of what Pixard told his old man.
Fri, May 22, 2015, 2:04am (UTC -6)
@Grumpy: “[...] just assume Picard is an unreliable narrator. This, and his pronouncements about the Federation economy, are his opinions, not shared by all”.
I'll let the good captain himself answer:
PICARD: That's what this is all about. A lot has changed in the past three hundred years. [...]
[“The Neutral Zone”]
The thing is, Luke and Grumpy, you’re looking at it from a purely 20th century perspective. To *you*, *today*, it may seem that if an organization has armed vessels, uses a classic naval hierarchy, and conducts exercises meant to improve defensive capabilities, that organization must by definition be military. It makes perfect sense to think that today, because such is the reality today. But in a future in three hundred years, that may perfectly well not be the case.
The absolutely wonderful thing about Star Trek, and particularly TNG, is that it tells the story of a future which is not merely a continuation of the reality of today with improved technology, but actually with improved mentality as well.
You can claim that this is a Utopia. As I have written elsewhere here, it is clearly the way the Western world is heading, though. The trend is undeniable, unless one has no historical perspective whatsoever. Try comparing 2015 to 1915, and to 1815.
In 1815, the thought of many of the phenomena we observe, tolerate, respect, and protect in our societies two hundred years later would abhorr most, and be considered immoral by virtually anyone; only an infinitesimal fraction of progressive-minded people would even consider them as utopian. Two hundred years later, it’s increasingly becoming our commonplace reality.
The vast majority of people from 1815 would consider people in distant 2015 living the way we do immoral. Take a look at yourselves: do you consider yourselves to be immoral?
Just like many people today seem to consider Starfleet in the distant 24th century military...
It is absolutely clear in TNG that Starfleet does not perceive itself as a military organization. That is what matters, not your perception of things. And it’s not just Picard as “an unreliable narrator”, as Grumpy suggests. Let’s hear it from the droid:
DATA: Welcome to the Enterprise, Ishara. I am Commander Data.
ISHARA: You're not human.
DATA: I am an android.
(Ishara glances at him.)
ISHARA: Built for fighting...?
DATA (reacts): On what do you base that assumption?
ISHARA: A cybernetic device serving on a starship...
DATA: The Enterprise is not a ship of war. It is a ship of exploration.
[“Legacy”]
This can only be a statement of fact, based on what Starfleet thinks of itself in the 24th century: it is an organization of science, and diplomacy.
People really, really, really have to open up their minds, and stop applying anachronistic concepts to a future reality that is clearly depicted as being different. You simply have to step out of your reality. Here’s an example of what I mean:
CLEMENS: Oh? Well, I'm not so impressed with this future. Huge starships, and weapons that can no doubt destroy entire cities, and military conquest as a way of life?
TROI: Is that what you see here?
CLEMENS: Well, I know what you say, that this is a vessel of exploration and that your mission is to discover new worlds. That's what the Spanish said. And the Dutch and the Portuguese. It's what all conquerors say.
[...]
CLEMENS: Young lady, I come from a time when men achieve power and wealth by standing on the backs of the poor, where prejudice and intolerance are commonplace and power is an end unto itself. And you're telling me that isn't how it is anymore?
TROI: That's right.
CLEMENS: Well, maybe it's worth giving up cigars for after all.
[“Time’s Arrow, Part II”]
It doesn't get much clearer than this wonderful quote: it just isn't how it is anymore. A lot has changed in those three hundred years. So in the end, we’re back in “The Neutral Zone”:
PICARD: This is the twenty fourth century. Material needs no longer exist.
RALPH: Then what's the challenge?
PICARD: The challenge, Mister Offenhouse, is to improve yourself. To enrich yourself. Enjoy it.
Fri, May 22, 2015, 2:24pm (UTC -6)
Starfleet is an organisation which is military-capable when the need for military action arises. A real military is an organisation whose primary mission is military action--securing, defending and/or expanding the sovereignty of its nation. Starfleet's mission is exploration. The point is the Federation does not believe in supporting a branch whose exclusive purpose is military action because the goals of any such organisation undermine the principles of its government. Practical contingency requires that the Federation be able to defend itself when the time requires it and Starfleet is the logical body to execute this contingency, just as your cellar might be the best place to hide during a tornado, but it is not therefore defined as a tornado shelter. It's your cellar where you keep your tools and your wine and, occasionally, hide from the storm.
Fri, May 22, 2015, 8:06pm (UTC -6)
Or it can be a statement of UFP propaganda, and what Starfleet (and its members) thinks of itself could be a delusion.
Now, I'm not saying you're wrong. Not at all! I just think it's more interesting to imagine a more layered world beyond the narrow perspective the series gives us.
Sat, May 23, 2015, 12:20am (UTC -6)
I'll fully grant that Starfleet is not militaristic, and certainly not imperialistic. But that's a far cry from saying that "Starfleet is not a military organization."
As Elliott points out, a military is tasked with securing and defending the sovereignty of its nation. That's obviously one of Starfleet's primary objectives. Whenever the Federation needs something like that done, they turn to Starfleet. In "Errand of Mercy," when war broke out with the Klingons, it was Starfleet that defended UFP territory and interests. In "Balance of Terror," when there was a Romulan incursion into Federation space, Kirk was tasked to deal with the threat. Even in TNG, in the episode immediately before this one, Picard is sent to deal with a possible military threat to outlying Federation colonies.
The fact that their primary purpose is exploration doesn't negate the fact that they are, without a doubt, the armed forces of the United Federation of Planets.
Sat, May 23, 2015, 4:55am (UTC -6)
I see. That would explain your suggestion of Picard as an "unreliable narrator".
As for me, I accept and cherish the vision of the future that TNG has to offer us.
Because as I just mentioned, it’s not just Picard. It’s the very fabric of the series, right there from the very beginning at "Encounter at Farpoint":
PICARD: Most certainly I deny it. I agree that we still were [a dangerous, savage child-race] when humans wore costumes like that four hundred years ago. [...] But even as far back as that costume, we had begun to make rapid progress.
The very pilot of TNG establishes the cornerstone of the series: the child-like race is no more. Which is perfectly book-ended by the final episode of the first season I quoted before, now in full:
PICARD: A lot has changed in the past three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We have grown out of our infancy.
I don't know about you, but I find the optimistic vision of the future of TNG absolutely wonderful. Don't you?
I know things changed. I know that eventually we’ll see devious admirals such as Pressman on TNG, and before we know it we’re watching DS9. But at its core TNG retained a futuristic, optimistic message: humanity is improving. And one day, we may become an enlightened civilization of enlightened individuals.
Now, you may find it more interesting to "imagine a more layered world beyond the narrow perspective the series gives us," as you put it, and you’re of course in your right to do so.
But that reminds me of that wonderful line by Łem I have quoted before:
"We have no need of other worlds. We need mirrors. We don't know what to do with other worlds."
If indeed you try to "imagine a more layered world", aren’t you really merely trying to see a reflection of *your* world in TNG, instead of seeking out that new world and new civilization TNG proposes?
Fri, Aug 28, 2015, 9:39am (UTC -6)
A solid but ultimately unsatisfying episode. We spend the whole hour building up to the Picard-Riker confrontation and then it is snatched away from us by an entirely random intervention from the Ferengi. You can see why the writers did not want to see who would win between the two - any conclusion would set up probably unwanted character dynamics. But to avoid that confrontation by introducing a conclusion so contrived it beggars belief is an unsatisfactory way out.
On the positive side, the familiarity with the characters is now completely coming through in their interactions, which are increasingly fleshed out and realistic. And if you can argue about the likelihood Data's crisis of confidence, there's little to argue about in his triumphant "I busted him up" finale. 2.5 stars.
Sat, Sep 5, 2015, 7:22am (UTC -6)
Dr. Crusher had almost no personality, and she was almost never involved in anything interesting. They sent her on away missions a few times, but it almost always felt forced (why should the chief doctor be on an away mission?)
Troi's character had a sensible premise ("A starship ought to have a counselor. What's a sci-fi thing we can do with a counselor? Make them an empath!"); but her powers ended up being either useless, or so useful they felt arbitrary and took all tension out of the plot. Troi herself was consistently written as a passive victim -- when Marina Sirtis got to do something interesting, it was often because Troi got mind-controlled or something. Not to mention the constant awkward "fanservice".
Both of these characters were almost entirely defined by their cliched femininity -- passive, nurturing, motherly, love interests, objects to be ogled. They tried to do better with Troi in the later seasons; but she was at a disadvantage because the other cast had already had so much time to develop, and was held back by her character's inherent limitations. (Plus they just had to introduce the tired and stupid "woman loves chocolate" cliche.)
Dr. Pulaski, on the other hand, had her own interesting personality. But the writers, trying to recreate the Bones-Spock dynamic, mismanaged her horribly. Spock and Bones could be pretty fierce towards each other, but they always regarded each other at least as equals. They shared a mutual respect and friendship. Pulaski started talking down to Data the instant she saw him. I think the writers realized their mistake, because she got much better in the later episodes; and even though it felt like her character change came out of nowhere, I was so glad to see it that I was willing to let it slide. But the damage was already done. What a missed opportunity.
Tue, Sep 8, 2015, 1:18pm (UTC -6)
----------
And this misses the point entirely of the limitations of computers. There is a reason that the best human places thrash the best computers at Go!. All you need to do is to imagine that the strategy game in Trek is orders of magnitude more complex and the number of moves is such that Data cannot brute force it easily.
Data is not the same as a normal CPU, but your post makes it sound like humans always lose to computers at strategy games. That isn't the case. Not even close.
Tue, Oct 20, 2015, 6:35am (UTC -6)
But I am really surprised that only Dave in NC commented that, "It's no different than when Kasparov played Deep Blue."
I thought the Data-Kolrami match was an obvious nod to that epic set of contests--many of which ended in a draw.
And now for something unrelated to the game --SkepticalMI asked, "Why didn't Picard at least demand to the Ferengi to beam over the Hathaway's personnel and then let the Ferengi have the ship?"
YES! Picard claims to Kolrami that he just will not abandon the 40 crew members on the Hathaway, but then he doesn't even ask the Ferengi if he can have his personnel and they can have the ship? Instead, he comes up with an untested and risky maneuver to humble the Ferengi.
What if the two-second warp hadn't worked? Even Geordi thought it wouldn't work. Picard would then have to know that he had executed 40 people.
That lack of logic really ruined what had been a good episode up to then. And yes, I agree with the rest that having the Ferengi show up at all was a dumb move, story-wise. The "battle" between the Enterprise and the Hathaway was enough drama.
I think Riker would have won, and Kolrami and Picard would have recognized what weaknesses allowed cleverness to beat a better-armed ship. They would have made a plan to implement some sort of officer training, and then Kolrami would have said, "And now I'm off to my rematch with Mr. Data!"
Mon, Nov 9, 2015, 12:01pm (UTC -6)
On Data and Stratagema: It's a quibble, but I don't buy that a glorified arcade game -- where fraction-of-a-second response time is apparently crucial -- would be held in such high regard as an ultimate strategy game. At that speed, you're measuring reaction time (and maybe, as suggested above, facility with an input device), not intelligence.
More substantially, if Data doesn't understand that his computational facilities are limited, and thus it's totally reasonable that someone could beat him at a game, he needs to go back to the Academy and take more Computer Science classes. (And I guess he views Poker as a fundamentally different kind of game? One that isn't relevant to his job performance?)
So the episode is fun enough, but the lack of any convincing problem in the plot kept me from enjoying it as much as some others above.
(*The "run away" tactic embraced by Kolrami only carried weight because there are 1000 people on the Enterprise whose lives were at risk. In this and many other high-risk situations, I really don't understand why the crew size isn't more like 100.)
Mon, Nov 9, 2015, 2:54pm (UTC -6)
I wonder if Data had to do the Kobayshi Maru. Wonder how he would respond to a no win scenario.
Thu, Dec 17, 2015, 11:44pm (UTC -6)
Mon, Jan 4, 2016, 11:25am (UTC -6)
Thu, Jan 21, 2016, 11:49pm (UTC -6)
Data decided to play in a way that made the game go on indefinitely; until his opponent tired out or quit in frustration (which he did). Data called it a stalemate in self depreciating fashion, that doesn't make it one.
Really, it was a forfeit. Guy got frustrated at the length of the game and the lack of progress, and quit.
Fri, Jan 22, 2016, 8:07am (UTC -6)
Sat, Jan 30, 2016, 8:43pm (UTC -6)
Tue, Jul 5, 2016, 8:58am (UTC -6)
The thing I thought that was interesting was the Ferengi *almost* feel threatening. If they had them characterized like that from the beginning they would have been much more interesting adversaries. Of course when the tables turn the Ferengi cut and run rather quickly but oh well.
Fri, Jan 6, 2017, 5:09pm (UTC -6)
Sat, Feb 18, 2017, 9:58am (UTC -6)
Of course nowadays we've reached the point where computers crush the best human players of any game where brute-force searches are possible. So the idea that anything with an organic brain could beat Data sounds downright silly. But at the time the show was created it would have seemed not only plausible, but actually more realistic than Data winning.
Sat, Feb 18, 2017, 10:14am (UTC -6)
We're talking about the 24th century. What makes you think the game wasn't designed specifically to make it impossible to use brute force searching? That would most likely be the primary design factor in creating a game meant to be played at high levels in the future - make sure computers aren't good at it.
Sat, Feb 18, 2017, 2:48pm (UTC -6)
Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 10:51am (UTC -6)
As for Troi beating Data at space chess in a later episode, he probably has an "easy mode". It's no fun to play chess against a computer, you'd lose every time, so he probably has a mode that mimics human chess playing and allows for a more even playing field, so that people will actually play with him and it'll actually be fun for them. The surprise at her winning was probably him not expecting her to be able to beat that level, as he wasn't aware she was good at chess.
Either that, or 3D chess really does have components to it that the cold logic of a machine can't mimic, meaning that a machine can never e as good at it as a humanoid. (Remember, Kirk frequently beat Spock at the game, and Spock probably approached it far more mechanically than Kirk did.)
Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 11:11am (UTC -6)
Sun, Apr 16, 2017, 11:42am (UTC -6)
Ds9 and later episodes of tng endow the ferengi with traits that are not at all in keeping with the ugly, violent, aggressive "capitalist" monsters they initially invented. Whenever st creates species that are just so devoid of redeeming qualities, so contemptible, as the enemy, i find it cheap and dull. But it's worse when they use these invented races as a not so subtle pot shot at some belief they want to self righteously comment on or as an illustration of some type of person they want to knock down or show they are better than. Making a race of ugly irredeemable bad guys for the noble federation to smack down is too easy. And it's Especially troubling if the argument could be made that it perhaps is targeting a group, like when there seem to be some stereotypes going on that could lead one to see some alien race as representing a certain human group. Of course such things can never be proved and thus you can't criticize because there's always the argument that it wasn't meant that way and people are reading into it. Yeah ok. Whatever. But I still find it just distasteful bordering on offensive sometimes. At the very least it's so lazy and too easy and uncreative and unimaginative.
Tue, May 23, 2017, 4:14pm (UTC -6)
The premise of a war games simulation is a valid one and given the Borg threat and how the Federation is about exploration and not battle, it makes sense.
Nice to see the Ferengi as a real threat here and not - as they've become thought of by me like the clowns of the cosmos. Their appearance is convenient so we don't have to live with either Riker or Picard winning although had the story ended in Picard winning, that would have been perfectly acceptable given that he has the superior ship and would not diminish Riker at all.
The Stratagema game is also a nice subplot and its clever that Data doesn't try to beat Kolrami - but pisses him off greatly, which was nice to see. Data's line at the end "I busted him up" is great too.
It's a good but not excellent episode - 3 stars / 4 for me.
Wed, Jun 14, 2017, 3:40pm (UTC -6)
I thought this was utter rubbish.
1. What a ridiculous war game-I get that the person being tested is the underdog here but this is an unnecessary mismatch of vessels. Also even though I like the design for the Constellation Class they might have chosen a new model.
2. Another meaningless game-looked like Connect 4 gone bonkers-almost as impenetrable as the weird game played by Decker and Ilya probe in ST:TMP. Of course later in the series there is an even sillier game.
3. The embarassingly awful Ferengi again,for no good reason.
4, Data's pout and equally unbelievable arrogance when playing the odious melty face alien.
5. The overall puerile nature of the whole story eg babyish cheering on during the daft game, Papa Picard telling Data to pull himself together and come out of his bedroom.
2 wormholes for this turkey from me.
Sat, Jul 8, 2017, 3:22pm (UTC -6)
Rascals?
"Worf's sensor/holographic trick works fine on the Enterprise, but how would he have been able to fool the Ferengi?"
I liked the episode, but I agree, it's amazing nobody thought of that when writing it or just figured we wouldn't notice?
"War games played where functionality is completely, irreversibly lost to affected areas. No failsafe, really? What if it affected life support systems? Or there was a medical emergency and you needed to use the transporter? Ooops, you just died playing a wargame?"
It wasn't irreversible until a very bizarre series of outcomes happened. A presumable lucky hit from an attacker that was only unchecked because it happened to look like another Worf trick.
"I agree Kolrami isn't that brilliant in the context of an episode... but brilliance and memorization capacity are not the same thing."
I find him a mostly well-done character. He's too cocky, but he's clearly got the capacity for brilliance in a very rational way. His idea to abandon the Hathaway, at least temporarily, is very Vulcan-like. Possibly one reason they were considered master strategists as a species is that they didn't let emotional attachments get in the way of optimal choices. And yeah, they probably aren't as good as their reputation suggests - as Worf rightly points out.
" The game in question broke the record for duration and only ended when Kolrami forfeited the game in frustration, thereby conceding to Data the win. At the time of Kolrami's forfeit, Data and Kolrami had over 33,000 moves each."
This is exactly right, as anyone who has played at serious board game competitions can attest. A player quits the game while it is still in progress, loses the game - barring some odd situation where they quit due to unethical behavior by their opponent that would cause the GM to penalize that other person with an automatic loss, clearly not the case here.
Data's comment made sense, too. If I won a game due to my opponent walking away mid-game, and someone said "I won", I might respond with "not really, we were in a tie game and he just quit". Maybe a bit too humanesque of a response for Data, who would usually go for the technically correct definition, but he could easily have been clarifying "I did not achieve a win condition in the game - at the time of his forfeit, neither of us had an advantage."
Data going for a tie makes sense, too. As someone pointed out, gaming can be a matter of stamina. A tournament can be mentally taxing, and even sitting down staring at the same board for hours on end can be a challenge to overcome as you'd rather get up and walk around and get the blood flowing. Data knows he has an advantage in that none of this effects him.
Also, it's possible the game has no official draw condition. Inferior players/teams planning on going for a draw from the get-go makes some sense in drawish games/sports. But in a game with no draw condition, a player as capable as Data deciding from move 1 to try and make the game drawish might believably have never been done. And even if some human(oid) planned on it, possibly such a person would get tired of it after thousands of moves and decide to finally "go for it". Data has no ego or competitive drive. He literally doesn't care if he never achieves the games win condition. He just cares that his own internal functions are working properly.
Tue, Oct 10, 2017, 8:59pm (UTC -6)
That's a very interesting point, the parallels are striking, and I agree it likely was more serendipitous than planned.
Sat, Oct 21, 2017, 6:40pm (UTC -6)
Plodding sluggish. Dragged. Boring. Liked idea of war games in responsevto Borg threat but the execution was mediocre at best and took forever to get where it was going
Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 10:53pm (UTC -6)
But then I saw the, how many, 94 COMMENTS most of which revolve around stratigema - a completely fictional game - and what constitutes a stalemate.
Also in this episode, Troi says to Data, "Wait, wait, you're overanalyzing."
Uh huh.
Mon, Oct 23, 2017, 11:06pm (UTC -6)
Sun, Nov 12, 2017, 2:33am (UTC -6)
Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 10:11am (UTC -6)
Sat, Jan 27, 2018, 11:48pm (UTC -6)
Tue, Feb 27, 2018, 5:40pm (UTC -6)
On the topic of Data, I've been keeping an eye open during this watch-through for signs of Data's performance becoming what we know it to be in later seasons. In S1 Spiner played him especially enthusiastic, to the point of being annoying at times in his ridiculous attempts to act normally. In S2 those bright-eyed impulses seem to have been more subdued as Data began to be portrayed more as a machine and less like a young, precious child. The actual arrogance one could detect in early S1 is by this time long gone and the characterization seems to have settled on Data being truly emotionless, even in affect. But there's one trait we love about Data that was still almost entirely absent during S2, which was his child-like innocence, and I was intrigued to observe that Peak Performance is the very first time in the series we see him portrayed as positively fragile in his lack of understanding about humanity. Some of it is played for laughs here, but Data's loss of confidence is no laughing matter when he looks quite pitiful in his certainly that he's damaged. I can imagine this sort of notion goes through the head of many people, children and adults, where a failure is simply not something the brain can accept and it becomes rationalized in any number of ways, ranging from "I was never given a chance" to "it was never a fair game in the first place." It is so hard to accept failure that is no one's fault that frankly I think even most rational, reasonable people still cannot come to terms with failure simply being a part of life. Sometimes it's even desirable, because in the case of Strategema it caused Data to re-evaluate his intentions going into the game, rather than just assuming he was playing to win. That evaluation is exactly what the Enterprise is out in space to do: to learn not only about other species but about itself; to discover in deeper ways why it's even out there. Data's failure gave him insight into why he was playing the game in the first place. And lest this interpretation come off as my own imagining, note that prior to the first game Data asked Pulaski point-blank what possible reason he could have to play. This question was important to the arc of the episode. Data's final "I busted him up", besides being a classic line that would surely gain Data our love forever, is also the final touch on the first episode where he began to exhibit some truly human traits, even if ones other than those he would have thought to seek. Being humbled, learning through failure, and knowing when you're outmatched, are all tough lessons for an infallible android to learn.
I'll give a special mention to one of the most outrageous guest appearances in Trek history, where Roy Brocksmith brought comic turns like we hadn't seen since Harry Mudd in TOS. For a rather serious role he played every scene with incredible faces, grimaces, hilarious movements, and body language that wouldn't stop. It was like watching a goofy dance and the pantomime of someone taking himself entirely too seriously. It's almost hard to believe they let him do all that (I scarcely think anyone but him came up with all that), and certainly we wouldn't see an outright comedic interpretation like this again for most of the Trek series. I'm trying to think of an equivalent and having some trouble doing it. I guess if we include the DS9 Ferengi episodes there may be some equivalent there (like Combs' Brunt), but for 'normal people' I can't think of any characterizations this out there. And if you think I'm exaggerating go watch the very first scene with Kolrami walking on the bridge, walking past tactical and then into the Observation Lounge, and observe his double-take as he glances back in suspiciously. This is some crazy stuff! And of course there's his jovial slap-on-the-back to the guy who would later play Aaron Piece on 24, as some kind of preposterous attempt to mimic Riker's joviality once Kolrami had recognized him as a worthy tactician. Can't say enough good things about this guy. The funny thing is that I've seen Brocksmith in various other things, and although he's always quirky in a way I've never seen such clowning from his. Awesome.
Along with Q Who this has got to be one of the only 4-star episodes of S2. Maybe The Measure of a Man and A Matter of Honor are up there too, or at least close to it.
Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 3:38pm (UTC -6)
Wed, Mar 21, 2018, 5:17pm (UTC -6)
As to this episode's plot, it would have been much more interesting to use the Romulans here instead of the Ferengi, the latter of whom never came across as serious antagonists even at the time. It would have stated, unequivocally, that Starfleet IS a military organization, and one that is going to be doing little else for years to come.
Sat, Jun 9, 2018, 7:43pm (UTC -6)
Fri, Jul 27, 2018, 4:20pm (UTC -6)
E.g. from back in original Star Trek in Whom Gods Destroy (paraphrasing):
Garth: Kirk, you are the second greatest military commander there ever was, myself being the greatest.
Kirk: Well, I'm more of an explorer nowadays.
Fri, Sep 21, 2018, 6:07pm (UTC -6)
Anyway, what really bothered me about this episode was why the hell didn't Picard just tell the Ferengi that they were doing battle simulations??? I mean, training exercises, drills, war games, these are all standard practice, and the Ferengi should've been able to tell no damage was actually being done to either ship. Plus, where were they doing this that the Ferengi would just be happening by? You'd think they'd be deep in the heart of the Federation, preferably with a fully-armed escort to monitor the situation. Of course, Starfleet seems to be spread awfully thin as even a huge starbase didn't have any other operative ships to go after the Enterprise in 11001001. You'd think they'd at least have some runabouts or other small ships around. Worf tricking the Ferengi with the sensors is also a total flub, just like "all the equipment we're carrying to catalogue gaseous anomalies" Uhura mentions in The Undiscovered Country despite it being established at the beginning of the film that Excelsior is the ship that was on that mission. Oh well, it's still a fun episode.
Sat, Oct 6, 2018, 1:56pm (UTC -6)
The Ferengi are indeed the weakest part of the episode, especially the way they essentially appear out of nowhere then make an instant retreat again as soon as they're outmaneuvered. Enemies portrayed as simultaneously threatening and stupid don't really work - here the Ferengi are prepared to destroy the Enterprise (and their ship is depicted as being able to do so), but they're also cast as buffoonish and are outwitted very easily. It just doesn't work.
Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:32pm (UTC -6)
Episode was entertaining but the entire plot was contrived...
Why are they using an 80 yr old ship to train with? They should ne traing against Borg type ships and strategy as that is their clear and present threat as per Picard's own words in this episode. 2ND THE entire method of using laser optical hits and computers to simulate the battle seems to be used entirely for plot reasons - Enterprise takes a hit by the ferengi ship fusing their phasers into optic mode. Why all this work and use of the Hathaway when they have a perfectly good hokodeck to simulate the bridge of ANY ship - old federation vessel to another galaxy class ship so its a fair fight and solely about skill, ora Borg cube so the crew gets applicable combat practice. Holodecks are so under utilized except to film low budget, past period settings (Dickson hill, P.I) Sherlock Holmes, etc. Never do we see battle practice with ships and we know its possible- see episode RELICS where Scotty uses the holodeck to recreate the bridge of Enterprise A. Worf uses it ofte. to train his martial arts. Yet we never see it used for drills and fleet battle practice.
Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 4:39pm (UTC -6)
Riker wasn't redonkulous.
It was Data centred.
I enjoyed the blowhard egghead as the bad guy.
I forgive the portrayal of Ferengi (although I prefer their portrayal on DS9 at least they weren't as in S1)
I have seen some complaints on Pulaski's egging on of Data to play the game. However that is what makes her a great character. Who amongst us hasn't been the jerk occasionally and she was great in her attempt to make him confident again. This is better than characters who are always goody two shoes or bland. It makes the show interesting.
Troy was given a better part, no grating emoting.
It had an exciting plot to it. I had forgotten exactly how the standoff/exercise went so it wasn't spoiled for me.
9/10
Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 7:00am (UTC -6)
Sudden appearance of the Ferenghi very contrived.
Had some good moments, but mostly very blah. The idea of war games in preparation for The Borg was interesting, if not well executed.
Lots of talk about being prepared, not being distracted and not either over nor underestimating yourself. Knowing yourself.
Not much to say on this one, average or below.
Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 10:57am (UTC -6)
I forget, have you watched TNG before? This is a bit of an unfair comment, but this episode ages *much* better after being very familiar with the entire series. I don't believe I cared for it that much when it originally aired, probably for similar reasons that you mention. But at this point it's hands down my 2nd favorite S2 episode after Q Who. I think there's more to the Picard/Riker comparison in this one than initially meets the eye, and although it's hard to say why, the crew's interactions with Kolrami have become tons of fun for me to watch.
The big issue in this one is the Ferengi attack. Obviously it's necessary to have some 'real event' interrupt the war game to really test Riker, but why did it have to be this? They couldn't have seriously thought anyone still considered the Ferengi as a creditable threat, since by the time they conceived Q Who the showrunners already knew TNG needed a real enemy for the Federation. I have a theory about why the Ferengi is an appropriate chocie this but if this is your first time through TNG I wonder if there's some way we can put my theory on ice until you've gotten a bit further.
Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 9:23pm (UTC -6)
Yes, I've watched TNG before. I watched TOS, TNG, and VOY when they were first on, many many moons ago. I started watching DS9 and ENT during their initial runs also, but quit them early, back then.
Then, a couple of years ago, I got the idea of renewing my acquaintance with ST, on Netflix. I started with TNG and made my way through it sorta haphazardly - also watching VOY and ENT.
Somewhere along the line I found this site, and made some random comments now and then. When I decided to give DS9 a go, I started commenting regularly here - since this site was the reason I decided to give it a go.
Anyhow - have no worries about spoilers for me.
You're probably right after the Picard/Riker thing in this ep . . . Will is going to need his experience here and there's probably some major foreshadowing going on - I don't remember the actual showdown particulars well enough, though.
But this ep just didn't grab me. It was OK. I agree the Ferenghi thing was the ep's biggest downfall. Kolrami was well realized and well portrayed. Just not a very appealing character to me.
Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 8:16am (UTC -6)
Sun, May 10, 2020, 9:16am (UTC -6)
Sun, May 17, 2020, 9:38pm (UTC -6)
"I will have the secrets of the other Federation ship! Bloorp"
Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 10:46pm (UTC -6)
Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:50pm (UTC -6)
Ferengi threat: beam up the 40 crew members and warp out of there?
Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 3:16pm (UTC -6)
Peak Performance is a great episode.
Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 4:01pm (UTC -6)
Loved the character of Kolrami. A really enjoyable fat little twit of a douche.
My only other complaint about this episode is that I kept thinking about real life Pen Testing that we do at my job. What the Pen Testers don't do is ask the head of network security for the company they're testing to come over to their side and then use his credentials and knowledge of systems to attack. Because that would completely defeat the point of the test. Almost every network out there allows for remote connections and if you had access to admin credentials and their 2FA app guess what - you'll get in too.
So what, the hell, was the point of that War Game? Was it to simulate what would happen if the XO and Chief of Security and Chief Engineer all defected to the Romulans? Because, otherwise, the stuff that Worf and Riker and Wunderkind pulled completely undermined the entire point of what you'd expect a War Game to be. Logging into a system that you can access remotely and using your expertise and first hand knowledge of that system during a War Game makes no sense otherwise.
Everyone temporarily assigned to the Hathaway should have had their access temporarily disabled. Nobody should have been allowed to beam over.
Anyone can use inside info to cheat to win. That's not the point of the War Game as they presented it to us and I got so mad I smashed my Alf collectible drinking glasses in a rage.
Sun, Mar 7, 2021, 8:17am (UTC -6)
Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 1:36am (UTC -6)
It's nice to see proto-Quark in a pretty effective Ferengi appearance.
Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 2:10am (UTC -6)
Ok, it’s not 100% perfect - who would have won the actual simulation? But that kind of doesn’t matter. In the end it was about Picard and Riker proving to Starfleet that they were both tactically brilliant even when on “opposing” sides. Bring on the Borg!
3.5 stars.
Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 2:38am (UTC -6)
Ok, here’s my two pennorth: Starfleet is a military organisation that does not exist for conquest, but simply to force opponents to stalemate.
(Did I bust you up?)
Sun, Aug 1, 2021, 12:15am (UTC -6)
I compete in and study a similar game (chess), and let me tell you, calculation speed is not enough. If I use a program with a bad "understanding" of chess it doesn't matter what system I play on, I'll win. Exponential growth of possibilities means that calculation to the end is impossible. At some point some form of evaluation function will have to be used to evaluate the branches in the tree. If that function is bad, nothing else matters.
Let's look a LC0, a self learning neural network designed to play chess. When it started, it was garbage. And it stayed that way for a long time, even after months of training. It took a long time for it to "learn" enough about the game (aka modify weights in a network) to be really good. Now it's one of the best engines out there (behind Stockfish).
Data playing Stratagema is like LC0 when it's first starting out. It knows nothing about the game other than what it can calculate. And since it can't calculate to the end, or to an obviously superior position, that's almost worthless. Just because he's a computer doesn't mean he can inherently create abstract strategies that are better than those of a long time player.
This is why I love this episode. Data doesn't understand enough about the game to know what he did wrong. And it drives him nuts. If Data devoted himself to the game, he would surely surpass any organic being before too long, but as it stands he's simply inferior. And he's not sure how to deal with this.
And the solution is brilliant. I can imagine a game where one cannot calculate a victory, but they COULD calculate a draw. Where that's much simpler. He's acknowledging his own shortcomings, and playing to his strengths. It's great, and more realistic than people think.
Fri, Oct 8, 2021, 8:12pm (UTC -6)
Sat, Oct 9, 2021, 3:26pm (UTC -6)
The normal weapons were disabled for the battle simulation, and after the Ferengi attacked they couldn't bring the normal weapons back online. Plus their shields were down (presumably also disabled for the simulation), and photon torpedos are very dangerous at close range even with shields up.
Destroying a starship that has antimatter onboard is fantastically devastating, way more so than is usually portrayed. It's generally considered a nearly planet-destroying event if a ship the size of the Enterprise were in orbit. Not quite Alderaan level destruction, but definitely something between the Chicxulub asteroid impact and what happened to the Klingon moon Praxis.
Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 10:15am (UTC -6)
Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 10:44am (UTC -6)
Wed, Nov 24, 2021, 1:03pm (UTC -6)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edflm7Hh3hs
Tue, May 24, 2022, 9:00pm (UTC -6)
Sun, Feb 26, 2023, 1:05am (UTC -6)
I remember years ago seeing a documentary about a disaster simulation held to sharpen the skills of emergency personnel, with local volunteers playing the roles of the trapped and injured, complete with make-up to simulate bleeding wounds. In their orientation prior to the event, the volunteers were given a code word to use in case they needed genuine help for some reason, and sure enough, one of the townspeople did suffer from heat exhaustion and had to use the word. (Actually, as I recall, the concise code word was supposed to be "Coca Cola" and they were told this was because of the marketing slogan "It's the real thing," but the woman, in her dazed state, instead of saying "Coca Cola" began stammering, "It's the thing, it's … the real thing?" and her signal of distress was immediately understood, and the paramedics took care of her at once.)
I realize Coca Cola is probably long gone by the 24th century, but you'd think Starfleet could figure something out.
Sun, Feb 26, 2023, 1:26am (UTC -6)
Root beer isn't!
Sun, Feb 26, 2023, 1:33am (UTC -6)
Mon, Feb 27, 2023, 8:24pm (UTC -6)
Root beer is REALLY the real thing!
Thu, Jul 6, 2023, 8:07am (UTC -6)
"Kolrami was very annoying"
No less annoying than TNG's main cast in the first two seasons.
Sun, Jul 16, 2023, 8:53pm (UTC -6)
Submit a comment
◄ Season Index