Author |
Topic: Bot Bashing Records Discussion (Read 10184 times) |
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
 
Gender: 
Posts: 1413
|
 |
Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
« Reply #60 on: Apr 10th, 2008, 9:58am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Apr 10th, 2008, 9:06am, Arimabuff wrote:your strained principles that seem to be invented solely to justify your shallowblue games
|
|
A few days ago you were claiming that these very same games violated these very same principles!!! [by adding (imaginary) "extra steps"] I presume you are now retracting that claim?
Please don't start making ridiculous and unfounded accusations again. If you want evidence against this new assertion, all you have to do is look at my handicap games before those games in question.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 10th, 2008, 9:59am by 99of9 » |
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
mistre
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 553
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #61 on: Apr 10th, 2008, 10:26am » |
Quote Modify
|
I propose that instead of arguing semantics, that both of you start playing Shallowblue again and see what type of legitimate record can be established using the agreed upon sacrificing guidelines.
I think that whatever the handicap is if and when your opponent captures a piece, than that is what it is and you cannot keep sacrificing pieces to count for the handicap.
Go for it!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Arimabuff
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2764
Gender:
Posts: 589
|
|
Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
« Reply #62 on: Apr 10th, 2008, 10:29am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 10th, 2008, 9:58am, 99of9 wrote:
A few days ago you were claiming that these very same games violated these very same principles!!! [by adding (imaginary) "extra steps"] I presume you are now retracting that claim?
|
|
That's not what I said, that may be how you understood it though. If so then I wasn't clear enough and I apologize. I said that these games should not be counted as handicap games but without telling you why. Later on, I gave you my reasons why these games should be removed from the table and I stand by them. These reasons are consistent and complementary with each other. And I don't see you addressing any of them which in debate rules means that you tacitly agree with them.
Quote:
Please don't start making ridiculous and unfounded accusations again.
|
|
I am not making accusations, I am just stating that your rules are both strained and only needed to justify your botshallowblue games. I don't see any other game that would need them.
I am not saying it's intentional, just how it looks.
You asked for clear principles and I gave them to you and your response doesn't contain any counter arguments against these principles.
Stop replacing arguments, which you seem to be short of by pure polemic and petty bickering.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Arimabuff
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2764
Gender:
Posts: 589
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #63 on: Apr 10th, 2008, 11:03am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 10th, 2008, 10:26am, mistre wrote:I propose that instead of arguing semantics...
|
|
I am not the one arguing semantics, 99of9 asked for clear principles and I gave them to him.
Now instead of addressing those principles, he attacks me on bits of sentences that are not part of the main argument and instead of seeing them, as they are mainly speech rhetoric he chooses to see them as accusations.
In addition, he takes one sentence I supposedly said a few days ago that may have had an ambiguous meaning to it and chooses to ignore everything I said in the meantime that more than clarified it.
That's unfair and as I said before in a debate that only shows that he has nothing to respond to the main arguments, so he tries to muddle the issue by petty bickering instead.
I rest my case.
Quote:
...that both of you start playing Shallowblue again and see what type of legitimate record can be established using the agreed upon sacrificing guidelines.
|
|
I may just do that, but I will wait for that that the current dispute is settled.
Quote:
I think that whatever the handicap is if and when your opponent captures a piece, than that is what it is and you cannot keep sacrificing pieces to count for the handicap...
|
|
That's pretty much I stated myself. Once the clash with the bot has started, the sacrificing sequence is over. Unless you are willing to give up your pieces for free.
The bot is not AT YOUR SERVICE but at ITS OWN which is supposed to be contrary to yours.
A bot as well as a human adversary is supposed to take your pieces, that's their job, they don't do that to help you augment your handicap.
The mere idea of adding their spoil of the battle to your handicap credit is ridiculous!!!!
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 10th, 2008, 11:19am by Arimabuff » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Arimabuff
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2764
Gender:
Posts: 589
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #64 on: Apr 10th, 2008, 3:35pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 10th, 2008, 7:40am, 99of9 wrote:
EMHHDDCRRRR against ArimaaScoreP1 with gold in game 73905. |
|
EMHHDDCRRRR against ArimaaScoreP1 with silver in game 73935.
That one took some doing!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #65 on: Apr 11th, 2008, 10:06am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 10th, 2008, 10:26am, mistre wrote:| using the agreed upon sacrificing guidelines. |
|
But that is the exact problem, we do not yet have any agreed upon guidelines (even if we accept that pieces killed by bots do not count). Unless we get some, I predict that a similar dispute will come up in the future.
So far there are some laid out in different states of clarity, and certainly not agreed upon (in rough order of strictness):
- aaaa (requires certain piece order and optimal speed but has not defined optimal speed)
- janzert (no piece order, fast per move suicide restrictions, no step restrictions)
- 99of9 (no piece order, no per move suicide restriction, step toward trap restriction, I'll accept general opinion that bot kills don't count)
- arimanatorV1 (6 piece onset allows 4 superfluous steps not in same move, superfluous not defined, no piece order)
- arimaanatorV2 ("the bot is not working for you"&&"a piece you intend to sacrifice for handicap is NOT YOURS to play with", definition of "play with" is "obvious tactical ploy")
- mistre (bot kills don't count, sacrificed pieces after first bot kill don't count, no speed rules??, no piece order rules)
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 11th, 2008, 10:10am by 99of9 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #66 on: Apr 11th, 2008, 10:09am » |
Quote Modify
|
shallowblue EMHHDDC with gold game 73958
shallowblue EMHHDDCR with silver game 73961
(which meet my standards but not janzert's or aaaa's)
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 11th, 2008, 10:10am by 99of9 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #67 on: Apr 11th, 2008, 11:30am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 11th, 2008, 10:06am, 99of9 wrote:
But that is the exact problem, we do not yet have any agreed upon guidelines (even if we accept that pieces killed by bots do not count). Unless we get some, I predict that a similar dispute will come up in the future. |
|
That's exactly right, there is still no agreed-upon definition. It is inevitable that rule disputes will arise again, because the rules are not yet clear. Arimabuff, when the next rule disagreement surfaces, please do not say that someone is changing the rules. Nobody can change the rules when there are no rules. Furthermore we can't get to the point where we do have rules unless we air our different perspectives and try to reach a consensus. We have to be allowed to disagree publicly and discuss calmly and in good faith, or else there will never be a basis for fair competition.
I tend to be on the stricter end of the scale in what I would think should count as a material handicap. The only drawback I see in having very stringent requirements on the speed and order of sacrificing is that a bot may interfere and prevent the human from meeting the handicap requirement. Yes, it is frustrating that a stupid bot might not let you sacrifice pieces fast enough to make a handicap possible under certain guidelines, but that frustration is to be balanced against making the records themselves more unimpeachable.
I think we all can agree that a "real" material handicap is leaving the pieces off the board in the setup. If Omar adds that feature to the client, I expect it to end all disputes. (Consider this a feature request, Omar ) In the mean time, the argument turns on comparing the difficulty of winning given a certain speed and order of sacrificing pieces compared to to the difficulty of winning without those pieces in the original setup.
I am not necessarily convinced that the extra moves given to a bot make the handicap win more difficult. It is possible that the bot uses those moves to weaken its position. If one counts pieces that one has left vulnerable for the bot to take as sacrificed pieces, one could use such sacrifices to lure the bot's pieces into bad positions, an option that won't be available in "real" handicap games once we are able to play them.
In the absence of an altered client, I think we should make sure that any handicap record we can achieve now will also be achievable by leaving off the pieces to start. It was an incredible accomplishment for 99of9 to beat ShallowBlue with only HRR, and that game should certainly be recognized among the all-time bot-bashing miracles. I don't see how it can be left off the Hall of Fame when it surpasses (in my estimation) the grandeur of the first no-capture immobilization game, which is included in the Hall of Fame. However, it is not at all clear to me that ShallowBlue can be beaten when one has only HRR in the initial setup. To my intuition, starting with only HRR would be a harder problem, so that game shouldn't qualify as a material handicap in my book.
(99of9, do you think beating ShallowBlue with only HRR in the initial setup is possible? That doesn't decide the validity of your record, because material handicap could be done on a different principle than I propose, but I am just curious whether you would agree that your record shouldn't count IF one accepts my hypothesis about a "real" material handicap being the standard to judge by.)
That's my philosophy, but I also think that the opinions of the people who actually are doing the material-handicap bot-bashing should count more than my opinion, since I don't care to attempt the records myself.
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 11th, 2008, 12:07pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Arimabuff
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2764
Gender:
Posts: 589
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #68 on: Apr 11th, 2008, 2:10pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 11th, 2008, 11:30am, Fritzlein wrote:
...I tend to be on the stricter end of the scale in what I would think should count as a material handicap. The only drawback I see in having very stringent requirements on the speed and order of sacrificing is that a bot may interfere and prevent the human from meeting the handicap requirement... |
|
The order of sacrificing is irrelevant, you're not supposed to use these pieces anyway, so it doesn't matter which one you'll be sacrificing first. As for the bot intervening and ruining our plans, I think it is pretty obvious to anyone who's been observing these games, that that is part of the challenge. Sacrificing your pieces in a way that ward off a premature goal before the end of your handicap. That's part of the challenge. That's why I said earlier that it would be unfair to confuse the present games with the future "instant handicap" games; we should always keep the two categories distinct.
Now 99of9 has de facto validated the new rules (that is, no help from the bot) since he has beaten mistre's handicap on shallowblue and claimed it! By his actions, as I said validating that mistre's (no help from the bot) record supersedes his old one.
You can't have your cake (ancient record) and eat it too (claiming to own the superseding record).
Therefore, I consider that as far as 99of9's assent goes, the case is closed.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #69 on: Apr 11th, 2008, 5:06pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 11th, 2008, 2:10pm, Arimabuff wrote:| Sacrificing your pieces in a way that ward off a premature goal before the end of your handicap. That's part of the challenge. That's why I said earlier that it would be unfair to confuse the present games with the future "instant handicap" games; we should always keep the two categories distinct. |
|
If we want two different types of exploits which are not comparable, and we don't want to confuse the two, we should probably use a different name for each. I suggest "initial sacrifice" for what we have to do now, and "handicap" for leaving pieces out of the setup phase. To any chess player "elephant handicap" means starting without an elephant. This is essentially the same as sacrificing your elephant on the first move, so the difference there doesn't matter and we wouldn't need a different name. But if "EMHDDCCRRRRRR initial sacrifice" is possible while "EMHDDCCRRRRRR handicap" is not possible, then we should reserve the latter name for what people who haven't read this thread will expect it to mean. I suppose that will cause the least confusion.
In the Bot-Bashing Hall of Fame we can at present have a table for the greatest "Initial Sacrifice" exploits. If Omar decides to alter the client to allow handicap games, then the Bot-Bashing Hall of Fame can have a brand new table for "Handicap" exploits.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Arimabuff
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2764
Gender:
Posts: 589
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #70 on: Apr 11th, 2008, 5:23pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 11th, 2008, 10:09am, 99of9 wrote:shallowblue EMHHDDC with gold game 73958
shallowblue EMHHDDCR with silver game 73961
(which meet my standards but not janzert's or aaaa's) |
|
shallowblue EMHHDDCRRR with gold game 73973
shallowblue EMHHDDCRRR with silver game 73978
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mistre
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 553
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #71 on: Apr 11th, 2008, 6:21pm » |
Quote Modify
|
The more I think about this, the more I think that we should just stick with what we have now (the initial sacrifice method) and not create a whole new category if handicapping is available in the set-up phase.
The reasoning is that I doubt there is going to be much difference between the two and will just create duplicate record-keeping. Furthermore it is going to be rather silly to play a bot like Arimaascorep1 or Shallowblue with a set-up handicap as all you will be doing is moving your pieces back and forth until the bots advance their rabbits. With the harder bots, it won't make much difference either, because you are sacrificing fewer pieces and you can do 3 during the first move.
I still think it would be neat to have handicaps established in the set-up phase for human vs human games for the reasons earlier stated. So I guess I am proposing that if the interface is changed - make it available only for human vs human games.
We seem to be getting close to having finalized rules for the initial sacrifices anyways. So let's just finalize the rules, list them on the page and be done with it.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #72 on: Apr 11th, 2008, 6:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 11th, 2008, 11:30am, Fritzlein wrote:| 99of9, do you think beating ShallowBlue with only HRR in the initial setup is possible? |
|
Yes, I honestly do. In your terminology I believe that against bots that willingly advance rabbits in the opening, handicaps are much easier to achieve than sacrifices. If I recall right "bot-assisted sacrifices" used in those games were for the purpose of delaying the bot, not getting its pieces out of position. (Though I can't quickly check because the links to those games have been removed from the botbashing page, and were not put on the exploits page.)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Arimabuff
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2764
Gender:
Posts: 589
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #73 on: Apr 12th, 2008, 12:22am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 11th, 2008, 6:21pm, mistre wrote:...I still think it would be neat to have handicaps established in the set-up phase for human vs human games for the reasons earlier stated. So I guess I am proposing that if the interface is changed - make it available only for human vs human games.
We seem to be getting close to having finalized rules for the initial sacrifices anyways. So let's just finalize the rules, list them on the page and be done with it.
|
|
That's exactly what I think; on both counts.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
« Reply #74 on: Apr 12th, 2008, 1:09am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Apr 11th, 2008, 10:06am, 99of9 wrote:
So far there are some laid out in different states of clarity, and certainly not agreed upon (in rough order of strictness):
- aaaa (requires certain piece order and optimal speed but has not defined optimal speed)
- janzert (no piece order, fast per move suicide restrictions, no step restrictions)
- 99of9 (no piece order, no per move suicide restriction, step toward trap restriction, I'll accept general opinion that bot kills don't count)
- arimanatorV1 (6 piece onset allows 4 superfluous steps not in same move, superfluous not defined, no piece order)
- arimaanatorV2 ("the bot is not working for you"&&"a piece you intend to sacrifice for handicap is NOT YOURS to play with", definition of "play with" is "obvious tactical ploy")
- mistre (bot kills don't count, sacrificed pieces after first bot kill don't count, no speed rules??, no piece order rules)
|
|
Here's a game to consider: EMHHDDCRRRR with silver against shallowblue in game 73995 http://www.arimaa.com/arimaa/games/jsShowGame.cgi?gid=73995&s=b . Do people think it should count? The key question is move 4w where the bot pulls my dog toward a trap (which I later sacrifice).
As far as I can tell, it satisfies the rules by 99of9, mistre, and ArimanatorV1 (and maybe aaaa, depending on how he defines "as few steps as possible" - in fact by some definitions of that he would require us to get the bot to help pull pieces toward the traps!).
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 12th, 2008, 1:09am by 99of9 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print