Author |
Topic: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame (Read 10992 times) |
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender: 
Posts: 5928
|
 |
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #15 on: Nov 1st, 2004, 6:50pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
I improved my shallowblue-silver-handicap record to having just a horse and 8 rabbits. Game 9039. Of course it won't last long if anyone really wants it. Records are falling all the time. See games 9132, 9131, and 9114, for example.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
 
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #16 on: Nov 2nd, 2004, 5:36am » |
Quote Modify
|
I'd be interested to know what others think on this issue:
PMertens wrote: (in the comments for game 9143)
Quote:maybe the number of rated games vs a bot should be limited somehow ... this new handicap-thing is surely fun, but since for example its not a question of "who will win", but just of "how many moves" its just a rating-collecting exercise. The "top-players" (even if you dont count me  ) all can beat a bot blindfolded - even 'ator - so in the end new players might find themselves positioned against bots with sub 1400 ratings. That just does not give any room for improvements. I can understand that using your main-account is hard because a loss is going to cost you, but I think you should not care that much for ratings but for fun and motivation of newer players. |
|
My reply:
I'm not sure I quite understand your point, but here's a few comments:
I would prefer the rating of everyone's main account to reflect their unhandicapped skill. Therefore we shouldn't play handicap bot games with that account, since when taking large handicaps there is a very high chance that we will lose.
With my new alias, I am not on a "rating-collecting excercise". I am on a botbashing exercise. Many of these games are at severe handicaps. I lose many of these games (see the game 2 games before this one for example). My rating is likely to fluctuate according to how hard my bot-chalenges are, but it will probably never go very high.
Most of these bots *should* have ratings below 1400, if the ratings system is to be believed. If you PMertens can beat arimaazilla every time, then your rating should be about 1000 points higher than its (according the the ratings formula). The rating of a new player will naturally go down at first because she/he is almost by definition significantly worse than the *average player* (which is what the 1500 mark represents). If they work hard and become as good as average, their rating should eventually return to 1500 as they learn.
Having said that, I would be very happy to play all of these games unrated. I do not care what the rating of this alias is. I will probably never play a normal rated human game with this alias. If you're sure this adds to the fun of newer players, and Omar can arrange unrated games, then I'll happily switch.
BTW - I'm not as good as you think in comparison to some bots. Arimaanator often poses a very serious challenge to me, and yes, I have lost without a blindfold.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
PMertens
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #692
Gender:
Posts: 437
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #17 on: Nov 2nd, 2004, 8:59am » |
Quote Modify
|
I hope its clear that I never meant any personal attack with this posting.
I just wanted to express my fear that something unexpected might happen due to more bot-bashing.
Whatever I post is always meant to improve, not to criticize. I absolutely respect you for your skills and all of the other "oldies" for what they have done here.
Ok, back to the topic
Certainly you dont care for the rating of your new account (I never said you did), but the way it is right now it just "removes" ranking points from those bots.
Imagine 3 players: You, Bot, Noob starting at 1500
after short time you will have a higher rating, and the noob a lower rating and the bot will have something in between (since you play more often than the average noob its probably below 1500)
Ok, the noob now became a decent player and can beat the bot - but so do you.
There is no way that the player will reach his 1500 anytime soon. (Even if this 2nd account ranks below 1600 it will reduce the "average player" mark)
Dont get me wrong ... I want you and me and all the others to continue to make these high-risk fun-games and I see why with a 2200points 13 wins streak only 50 losses superaccount would be rather cruel to use
(and I congratulate you for winning all your US vs. EU games)
I just think there might be a problem and maybe a simple solution (and maybe there is no problem ...)
Btw. I dont always win either (as you know) but I could repeat a "win-strategy" over and over.
The main reasons for losing against such bots are:
trying out variations
lack of concentration (my personal weakness)
And since I dont really care for ratings I will continue to try and challenge and play even if I am certain to get a beating.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #18 on: Nov 2nd, 2004, 10:19am » |
Quote Modify
|
I can see the problem that PMertens is getting at. And it is not easily solved. Having a second account or playing unrated games just doesn't cut it. And of course using the real account mess up the rating for that account. Even if you don't care that your rating is messed up, other who have to play you will care because it could effect them.
1. Acheiving fame with an unrated game is not as great an acheivement as doing the same thing with a rated game. The difference is that in the later you had something at steak and winning the game was more important to you than in the former. Thus you may not have played as risky or you may naturally not make as many attempts because you are losing something each time you try.
2. Using a second account is great for practing, but it means more if the record is acheived with the real account. Again the argument from 1 applies that it was acheived without steaking anything. Also the game gets listed with the second account which is known as your practice account and not your primary account.
Off hand I don't know what a good solution would be.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #19 on: Nov 2nd, 2004, 10:52am » |
Quote Modify
|
At first I agreed with PMertens that one should play handicap games rated and with one's regular account. After further reflection, however, I don't like the idea at all. The integrity of the rating system is already very flimsy, and disrupting it further with handicap games will make the ratings even less meaningful.
I expect that creating a dummy account for handicap games will actually disrupt the rating system _less_ than using the regular accounts. While having a new 1500-rated account bashing the bots could deflate the bot ratings, it won't necessarily, and in fact might inflate the bot ratings if the handicaps are so large that the bots sometimes win. Probably it won't balance out exactly, but the disruption will certianly be less than the inflation of bot ratings that occurs when handicap games are played with regular accounts. The other day, for example, I lost two quick handicap games to Arimaalon, handing it 60 points. When I turned around and beat Arimaalon, I gained zero points. I could beat it a hundred times and get nothing back. There is no way for that to balance out. Arimaalon simply had its rating pumped up without justification.
The best solution I can think of is playing handicap games unrated.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #20 on: Nov 2nd, 2004, 11:15am » |
Quote Modify
|
Don't worry, I never took it personally as I was sure you didn't mean it that way.
Omar I think you have actually slightly missed what PMertens is talking about. Your interpretation seems to be "Bot-bashing is just not glorious if there's nothing at stake (eg ratings)". But I don't think that's what he's saying.
Instead, as Fritzlein picks up, he's talking about ratings deflation. As a regular player I've already taken 700 ratings points out of the pot, leaving everyone elses average a few points lower than 1500. Now I create a second account, and start doing that *again* (albeit to a lesser extent since I may only go up to about 1700). The first time it was a natural consequence of my skill, the second time it is just doubling up. The more good players who set up extra accounts, the worse the problem gets. Am I right that this is the nature of the problem PMertens?
Presuming it is, here's my answer:
1) Fritzlein is right that although earning 200 points causes a slight deflation to everyone else, playing and often losing with a top players account would probably cause at least a 200 point inflation because that is about the amount my rating might go down by botbashing often.
2) Although you are worried about ratings deflation due to botbashing. This may actually be a good thing ... because on another thread we have been discussing for a long time the problem of ratings inflation! The ratings are currently artificially high, because it is much more common for a player to come in, lose lots of ratings points, then never return than it is for a player to come in, play well enough to gain ratings points, and then leave. These wandering-through players donate a bunch of ratings points to the average every time they do it. This means that as the game of arimaa gets older, the average ratings of active players (including bots) will continually inflate!!
The conclusion from the thread where we discussed this is that an anchored ratings system might be useful, where a whole bunch of bots were already benchmarked and had their ratings fixed. Then everyone would settle relative to that scale.
But until that day, I think deflation due to bot-bashing with second accounts will probably only help to balance out the inflation that has been constantly occurring.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #21 on: Nov 2nd, 2004, 12:02pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 2nd, 2004, 11:15am, 99of9 wrote:
2) Although you are worried about ratings deflation due to botbashing. This may actually be a good thing ... because on another thread we have been discussing for a long time the problem of ratings inflation! The ratings are currently artificially high, because it is much more common for a player to come in, lose lots of ratings points, then never return than it is for a player to come in, play well enough to gain ratings points, and then leave. These wandering-through players donate a bunch of ratings points to the average every time they do it. This means that as the game of arimaa gets older, the average ratings of active players (including bots) will continually inflate!!
|
|
It isn't possible to deduce apriori whether the way players enter and leave the playing pool will have a net inflationary or net deflationary effect. From my short time of observation, however, I rather expect that we are suffering from mild deflation at present. And even if we experiencing a small amount of inflation in the sense that average rating of active players going up (which I don't think we are) I suspect that there is significant deflation in the sense that Fotland meant, i.e. that a 1700-rated player today is signficantly stronger than a 1700-rated player was a year ago.
But anyway, I think that inflation/deflation is of minor significance compared to having accurate relative ratings at any given point in time. The problem with _rated_ bot-bashing in my mind is that it will cause the ratings to get all out of whack in the short term, regardless of what happens in the long term. I could easily drop my rating from 2000 to 1500 trying for a miraculous material handicap, while driving Arimaanator's rating from 1700 up to 2200. Then our ratings would just be wrong, and would screw up the ratings of other people we played against.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
PMertens
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #692
Gender:
Posts: 437
|
|
: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #22 on: Nov 2nd, 2004, 1:33pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 2nd, 2004, 11:15am, 99of9 wrote:Don't worry, I never took it personally as I was sure you didn't mean it that way.
The first time it was a natural consequence of my skill, the second time it is just doubling up. The more good players who set up extra accounts, the worse the problem gets. Am I right that this is the nature of the problem PMertens?
|
|
You were right - that was my (main) point.
But on top of that its true that (with or without using a second account) if you risk more and your record might be achieved und "unrealistic" circumstances and also affect the rating (and you are right - you having only 1800 points would be deceit )
I can see you point with the wandering-through players.
I dont have a solution - even though I suggested limiting the amount of rated games against bots (but that does not really change anything)
on Nov 2nd, 2004, 12:02pm, Fritzlein wrote:
But anyway, I think that inflation/deflation is of minor significance compared to having accurate relative ratings at any given point in time. |
|
I guess the only way would be to play more among us humans
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
PMertens
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #692
Gender:
Posts: 437
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #23 on: Nov 2nd, 2004, 1:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
btw. I claim the 1 horse handicap for Game 9144 against 'nator in 15 moves
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #24 on: Nov 2nd, 2004, 2:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I've posted an answer over on the deflation thread since I want to say more that isn't just bot-bashing related. But I agree with PMertens that accurate ratings require more human vs. human games. Failing that, at least Omar's new system will downplay repeated victories against the same bot.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #25 on: Nov 6th, 2004, 12:25pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I guess everyone knows by now that there is a new 'Unrated Mode' option in the left column of the gameroom which can be used to play unrated games even if the game was originally setup as a rated game. This will eliminate the need for second practice accounts and will the ratings from getting messed up.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #26 on: Nov 6th, 2004, 12:27pm » |
Quote Modify
|
If anyone has set a new record that can be included on the 'Hall of Fame' page, please post it in this thread so that I don't miss it. Thanks.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #27 on: Nov 6th, 2004, 1:16pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Game 9200 - silver handicap record against arimaazilla.
Game 9143 - gold handicap record against arimaazilla.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #28 on: Nov 11th, 2004, 1:17pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Game 9391 - silver handicap record against shallowblue: HRR only in 13 moves.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mouse
Forum Senior Member
Arimaa player #784
Gender:
Posts: 45
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #29 on: Nov 13th, 2004, 6:12am » |
Quote Modify
|
Game 9489 - silver win 6 moves no loses either side against ShallowBlue
Game 9543 - gold win 6 moves no loses
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 15th, 2004, 10:51am by mouse » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print