Author |
Topic: Bot Bashing Records Discussion (Read 10185 times) |
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
 
Gender: 
Posts: 1413
|
 |
Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
« Reply #30 on: Apr 7th, 2008, 5:41pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:37pm, Arimabuff wrote:
Read my post before this one. |
|
That's why I struck through my final words. I'm glad we are now in position to debate the merits of the various definitions.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
« Reply #31 on: Apr 7th, 2008, 5:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:34pm, Arimabuff wrote:| but that the 4 steps can't form an actual move. |
|
Can you clarify what you mean by this part?
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 7th, 2008, 5:43pm by 99of9 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Arimabuff
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2764
Gender:
Posts: 589
|
|
Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
« Reply #32 on: Apr 7th, 2008, 5:47pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:41pm, 99of9 wrote:
That's why I struck through my final words. I'm glad we are now in position to debate the merits of the various definitions. |
|
Debate all you want but extra steps are to be found im many records that YOU have validated including your infamous EMHDDCCRRRRRR with shallow blue. That's why I find it so strange that you'd be so strict and yet you didn't say anything about removing THAT GAME for the YEARS it has been in the HALL of FAME.
IT IS STILL THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Arimabuff
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2764
Gender:
Posts: 589
|
|
Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
« Reply #33 on: Apr 7th, 2008, 5:48pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:43pm, 99of9 wrote:
Can you clarify what you mean by this part? |
|
What I mean is that the 4 steps can't belong to the same move.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Arimabuff
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2764
Gender:
Posts: 589
|
|
Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
« Reply #34 on: Apr 7th, 2008, 5:58pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:03pm, 99of9 wrote:
I just posted the exact same situation for consideration. The difference is that I HAD to move a non-horse (either my cat, or the opponent's rabbit), because the suiciding horse was blocked in... |
|
First, you ACTUALLY knew that there would be a rabbit on top of the horse, so it's disingenuous to pretend that you didn't.
Second, you didn't intend to kill the cat then it shouldn't have stood in the way of the horse AT ALL. Pieces to be killed NORMALLY don't ZIG ZAG to get there. That's also dishonest of you to pretend that they do.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
« Reply #35 on: Apr 7th, 2008, 6:11pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:34pm, Arimabuff wrote:
I say that in case there are more than 6 pieces killed You can add at most 4 extra steps IN TOTAL between the first and the last killing but that the 4 steps can't form an actual move.
By extra steps, I mean steps that don't actually put a piece to be sacrificed closer to its trap.
Is that clear?
That rule validates both my games and 99's. |
|
This strikes me as a bit arbitrary. The rationale behind the strict rules I formulated earlier was that the opponent AI should be exposed to as much of an advantage as quickly as possible. What's yours?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Gerenuk
Forum Full Member
TheGerenuk
Gender:
Posts: 20
|
|
Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
« Reply #36 on: Apr 7th, 2008, 6:32pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Oh no. I was just experimenting with total annihilation, but there is no table for that 
Game: 73720
But how do people manage total annihilation without blockade?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
« Reply #37 on: Apr 7th, 2008, 6:58pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:47pm, Arimabuff wrote:
Debate all you want but extra steps are to be found im many records that YOU have validated including your infamous EMHDDCCRRRRRR with shallow blue. That's why I find it so strange that you'd be so strict and yet you didn't say anything about removing THAT GAME for the YEARS it has been in the HALL of FAME.
IT IS STILL THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/games/jsShowGame.cgi?gid=9391&s=b
Can you please identify which steps you claim are extra? It seems to me that every step was moving toward a trap, and the bot even helped me kill my pieces quicker!
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 7th, 2008, 6:58pm by 99of9 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Arimabuff
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2764
Gender:
Posts: 589
|
|
Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
« Reply #38 on: Apr 7th, 2008, 8:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 7th, 2008, 6:58pm, 99of9 wrote:
Your claim is false; the bot killed your camel and three rabbits that you have no right to claim as part of the handicap. A true handicap is something that you kill VOLUNTARILY not something that you conveniently say is part of a handicap because it has been taken from you. If I lose a piece by accident at the beginning of a game, can I say it was a handicap if ever I win the game afterwards?
Principles are only valid if you are willing to apply them when they inconvenience you.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Arimabuff
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2764
Gender:
Posts: 589
|
|
Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
« Reply #39 on: Apr 7th, 2008, 9:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 7th, 2008, 6:58pm, 99of9 wrote:
Let me get this straight:
For game 73676 you put your cat before the horse so that (since you knew that a rabbit would block the horse) the cat would have to move at a CONVENIENT PLACE for you but you claim the horse as part of the broken sequence of handicap because TECHNICALLY the cat HAD to BE moved. So even though we all know that you INTENTIONALLY blocked the horse with the cat we are supposed to grant you the horse because TECHNICALLY THE CAT HAD to BE moved.
For your game against shallowblue, TECHNICALLY you didn't sacrificed the CAMEL and three RABBITS, the bot killed them, but here where TECHNICALLY it doesn't go your way we are supposed to grant you the handicap because YOUR INTENTION was to sacrifice them anyway.
SO when we know that your intentions are bad (game 73676) we are supposed to judge solely on the TECHNICALITY, but when TECHNICALITY fails you we are supposed to forget about them and grant you the handicap because of your INTENTION.
I say you can't have it both ways. Either we judge technically and you lose your claim on shallowblue or we judge the INTENTIONS and you definitely lose your claim on game 73676, since anybody can see that your cat moves precisely where it's convenient for you to have it.
In fact, your device (of blocking the horse intentionally by the cat) moves the cat the same way I did except that unlike you I didn't try to disguise my intent behind a TECHNICALITY.
Am I being too subtle for you guys here?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mistre
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 553
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #40 on: Apr 7th, 2008, 9:50pm » |
Quote Modify
|
There is no easy solution to this mess. No one set the ground rules for handicaps that take multiple turns to achieve and, as we are all aware, complications can arise. There is really no rule for single move handicaps either, but nothing much happens in the first 2 moves, so those have been overlooked.
Until we have an interface that allows for pieces to be left out in the set-up, there will continue to be disagreement. I looked at the games in question and I don't think there is any way we can set a hard and fast rule that will be satisfactory to all.
In my opinion, all of these games have been great achievements. Let's leave them as such and move on.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 7th, 2008, 9:52pm by mistre » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Arimabuff
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2764
Gender:
Posts: 589
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #41 on: Apr 8th, 2008, 9:13am » |
Quote Modify
|
Ok, case closed! 99 and I both played a game that satisfies our mutual criteria. I get the gold and he gets the silver.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #42 on: Apr 8th, 2008, 9:32am » |
Quote Modify
|
Yes indeed. I think it was worthwhile to remove the ambiguity.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mistre
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 553
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #43 on: Apr 8th, 2008, 10:09am » |
Quote Modify
|
Great! I am glad you guys were able to work it out. 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #44 on: Apr 8th, 2008, 6:33pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I agree with mistre's game comment that the record for largest handicap should go to whoever does it first, not to whoever does it in the fewest moves. For material handicap the question is whether it can be done at all, and the proof of concept is more important than refinement. Just my two cents; other opinions may vary.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print