Arimaa Forum
        (http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi)
      

        Arimaa >> General Discussion >> Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
        
(Message started by: Fritzlein on Oct 26th, 2004, 3:30pm)
Title: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Oct 26th, 2004, 3:30pm
Omar, I think there should be a link from the gameroom to a page of achievements against the standard bots you maintain (i.e. bots which don't change the way they play over time).  For each bot there could be a record for


    * Shortest number of moves to victory by goal
    * Greatest material handicap offered
    * Shortest number of moves to victory by immobilization


and anything else interesting we think of.  That way people can stretch themselves towards different types of achievements against bots, instead of sticking to tried and true methods of winning.

Hmmm... is it a greater material handicap to start minus the elephant or minus a camel and a horse?  Maybe they could both be listed if both achieved.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Oct 26th, 2004, 9:42pm
Actually I think thats a fun idea - and much more adrenaline, cause the risk are just higher.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by MrBrain on Oct 27th, 2004, 8:51am
I once beat ShallowBlue in less than one minute.  ;D  (57 seconds I believe.)  Impressive?  You decide.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Oct 27th, 2004, 5:37pm
Great idea. I'll setup such a page.

I was also thinking it might be fun to have a monthly contest related to beating the bots with some handicap or with some odd setup, etc. For example one month the contest might be to beat Arimaalon as silver after trapping your dog and horse on the first move. The player who can acheive this with the fewest number of moves would win the contest that month.

Let me know what you guys think.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Oct 27th, 2004, 6:57pm
Sounds good to me.  

You need to make the bot-of-the-month accessible to play unrated.  Otherwise all our ratings will get messed up.

Also you should specify that if two people tie at the number of moves they beat the bot in, the person who does it first wins.  Otherwise once it is done once, anyone else can copy the moves exactly and do the same.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Oct 27th, 2004, 8:41pm

on 10/27/04 at 08:51:05, MrBrain wrote:
I once beat ShallowBlue in less than one minute.  ;D  (57 seconds I believe.)  Impressive?  You decide.


Sure, this is another fun category of record to keep.  I queried my database to for more shortest-time records:

Game 1387 MrBrain def. ShallowBlue in 57 seconds
Game 1388 ShallowBlue loses to MrBrain in 64 seconds

Those are the fastest times to beat ShallowBlue playing Gold and Silver respectively.

Game 3276 Arimaazilla loses to bleitner in 65 seconds

There is no point recording the fastest time to beat Arimaazilla with Gold, since it is slower.  On the other hand, the above record is slightly suspect since it was a victory by repetition of moves.  The record time for a game decided by goal is

Game 5091 tomcstein def. Arimazilla in 164 seconds

which also happens to be the fewest number of moves.  MrBrain's victories weren't in the fewest moves, and neither are the records for fastest time to beat Arimaanator:

Game 4257 bleitner def Arimaanator in 507 seconds
Game 3882 Arimaanator loses to haizhi in 537 seconds

The games archive is only current up to October 24, so the following records for Arimaalon and Arimaazon have probably already been broken, but within what I can query:

Game 8681 99of9 def Arimaalon in 332 seconds
Game 8737 Arimaalon loses to LuckyLarry in 357 seconds
Game 8774 Arimaalon loses to BlackKnight in 7 moves

Game 8808 Arimaazon loses to ytri in 15 moves and 1382 seconds, but this latter record perhaps shouldn't count since it was decided by repetition of moves and not goal.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Oct 28th, 2004, 2:58pm
I just added a 'Bot Bashers' link in the Arimaa gameroom. For now it only includes shallowBlue, Arimaazilla,  and Arimaanator. If I missed some games, let me know.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Oct 28th, 2004, 3:53pm
Looks good.

I think you should take down the Groumpf record against bot_arimaazilla.  The version of arimaazilla he played (January 2003) was obviously broken (killed its own elephant within a couple of moves).  I think these bot-bash records should only be against stable repeatable bots.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Oct 28th, 2004, 7:48pm
Cool, thanks for setting this up, Omar.  But I'm disappointed that my giving horse odds to Arimaanator isn't considered a large material handicap.  It's the largest yet, anyway!  You should add it to the record books if only to inspire 88of8 to offer a camel...  ;)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Oct 28th, 2004, 11:16pm
Do you mean game 8925. I didn't include that one, because I noticed it was due to tripping the bug in Arimaanator. You would have won, even if the bug didn't get tripped. But I just wanted to be consistent and use only games that ended with goals or immobilization. Plus this gives you a reason to try it again :-)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Oct 29th, 2004, 7:33am
Ah, of course.  It is best to be consistent and include only wins by goal and immobilization.  I will try horse odds again at some point, but I will probably create a dummy account first and play my way up.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by BlackKnight on Oct 31st, 2004, 9:52am
How about adding the shortest games with all pieces still on the board?  ;)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Nov 1st, 2004, 9:49am
I played a few games to fill in your table, and put a mark in the sand for others to try to better:

against shallowblue:
win by no-move:
gold:  game 8907, 22 moves (the same game as the handicap you have listed)
silver: game 9114, 22 moves

win with biggest material disadvantage:
gold: game 9054, 16 moves, gave away MHHDDCCRRRRRR
(Only left with E+2R ... on a challenge from Fritz.  I'm actually not sure which was a bigger disadvantage, this, or the game you have listed where I started with only D+8R.  It took me longer to achieve this new one.)

against arimaazilla:
win by no-move:
silver: game 9035, 23 moves
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Nov 1st, 2004, 9:53am

on 10/31/04 at 09:52:41, BlackKnight wrote:
How about adding the shortest games with all pieces still on the board?  ;)

Sounds like a good category to me.  This means you can't play the usual game of tempting the bot with free pieces.  

We even have an example against Bomb2004CC ... since Omar played for exactly this outcome in one of the Challenge games.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Nov 1st, 2004, 1:17pm

on 11/01/04 at 09:53:32, 99of9 wrote:
We even have an example against Bomb2004CC ... since Omar played for exactly this outcome in one of the Challenge games.


I remember that game well; I did it in 41 moves playing silver.
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/games/showGame.cgi?gid=5318&s=b

I've updated the Bot Bashers page.

Added the 'win with no pieces lost by either side' catagory suggested by BlackKnight.

Added Toby's games and some other games to fill up the catagories.

For Toby's games with material handicap against shallowBlue, I decided to use the point values for pieces defined in the Arimaa scoring function. Thus the game with E+2R was considered more of a handicap than D+8R.

We have to keep in mind that Arimaanator is not hardware or processor load independent. Its currently running on my P3 1.1GHz winXP notebook. The move time settings are 30 moves in 30 minutes. If these parameters change of if my usage changes it could play more stronger or weaker.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Nov 1st, 2004, 6:50pm
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.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Nov 2nd, 2004, 5:36am
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.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Nov 2nd, 2004, 8:59am
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.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Nov 2nd, 2004, 10:19am
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.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Nov 2nd, 2004, 10:52am
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.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Nov 2nd, 2004, 11:15am
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.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Nov 2nd, 2004, 12:02pm

on 11/02/04 at 11:15:47, 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.
Title: : Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Nov 2nd, 2004, 1:33pm

on 11/02/04 at 11:15:47, 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 11/02/04 at 12:02:38, 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 ;-)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Nov 2nd, 2004, 1:39pm
btw. I claim the 1 horse handicap for Game 9144 against 'nator in 15 moves ;-)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Nov 2nd, 2004, 2:44pm
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.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Nov 6th, 2004, 12:25pm
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.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Nov 6th, 2004, 12:27pm
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.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Nov 6th, 2004, 1:16pm
Game 9200 - silver handicap record against arimaazilla.
Game 9143 -  gold handicap record against arimaazilla.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Nov 11th, 2004, 1:17pm
Game 9391 - silver handicap record against shallowblue: HRR only in 13 moves.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by mouse on Nov 13th, 2004, 6:12am
Game 9489 - silver win 6 moves no loses either side against ShallowBlue
Game 9543 - gold win 6 moves no loses
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Nov 15th, 2004, 10:27pm
Wow the records against shallowBlue are falling fast. I've updated the bot bashers page with these games. Nice going guys.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Nov 16th, 2004, 4:47am

on 11/13/04 at 06:12:23, mouse wrote:
Game 9543 - gold win 6 moves no loses

This also breaks the record for overall fastest win with gold.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Nov 17th, 2004, 4:25pm
Your're right. Thanks for pointing it out. I just added it.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by mouse on Nov 19th, 2004, 11:26am
Game 9678 - as gold immobilization in 27 moves arimaanator
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Nov 22nd, 2004, 11:16pm
Thanks. I've posted it to the bot bashers page. It always funny to see the elephant commit suicide as in this game :-)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jan 2nd, 2005, 8:31pm
it has been a while since anybody bashed a little :-)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 2nd, 2005, 9:21pm
Keeping speedy down is, for the moment, a more engaging challenge than setting records against a weak bot.  I'll try giving Arimaanator camel odds sometime when speedy is offline.  :-)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by fotland on Jan 3rd, 2005, 1:36am
How about giving speedy odds?  I bet you could beat it giving it a dog or cat or more.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Jan 3rd, 2005, 3:07am
Do you want speedy added to the bot-bashing hall of fame?  I expect Omar would oblige.

In game 10877 I offered speedy odds of dog and move and won.  It was an exhausting game.  I'm not sure I can give greater odds and still win, but I'll try at some point.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Jan 3rd, 2005, 6:11am
The problem is we really need a permanently stable bot before bashing can really mean much.  For example, if David introduces a major bug in 6 months time, we might break all records before he's fixed it... then what fun would there be in the speedy records?
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jan 3rd, 2005, 9:49am
how about taking the Speedy 2004 version as non-changing entity ?

since humans are getting better and more new players start playing arimaa we could use some more steps between 'nator and the current best bot anyway.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Jan 4th, 2005, 10:15pm
After the computer championship and challenge match are over, the bots that were submitted will become available to play in the Arimaa gameroom. These bots will be static and never change. Also these bots allow setting streangth parameters such as number of steps to search. So they can be stable even as CPUs get faster.

It will be much more meaningful to have bot bashing contests against these stable bots.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by mouse on Jan 14th, 2005, 11:25am
Game 11240 silver win by immobilization against ShallowBlue in 21 moves
Game 11266 gold win by immobilization against ShallowBlue in 18 moves
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Jan 22nd, 2005, 8:53am
Thanks I've added these to the Bot Bashers page.

Also added by win against Arimaanator with a camel handicap playing silver (game 11412). Can't beleive I pulled that off on my first try. I had tried with a horse handicap a few times before but wasn't able to do it.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jun 23rd, 2005, 1:48am
ok, posted in the correct topic and won by goal:

bomb_blitz with camel and dog handicap

Game 16244

by the way game 16097 is proof that 2 dogs are possible - if you dont timeout like me :-)
Whoever gets more than two dogs is my personal hero  8)

This victory is dedicated to Fritzlein who tried it first and inspired me to this experiment.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jun 24th, 2005, 10:00pm
Bomb_Blitz with 1 camel and 2 dogs :-)

Game 16318
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jun 28th, 2005, 12:29pm
Omar, is there an official statement wether or not you are planning to add games against Blitz and other non-stable bots to the botbashing list ?

While I still got the record for Bomb_Blitz (MDDR) its safe to suggest to officially limit listed games to the fixed versions.
If we do not do that there might be an inflation of records against all those many variations of bots.

I am not saying to remove those records against unstable versions that are already listed, since people might not like it (for example some of those fastest games will be fastest forever ;-) )
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jun 28th, 2005, 1:14pm
Sorry Omar - seems like I cannot read :-)
Just found the official statement  8)

(its on the start_bot page)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jun 28th, 2005, 2:02pm
ok, MDD for Bomb P2 (16450)

now, what do we learn from this game ?

1) MDD is no problem against P2 (toby will probably prove MDDC soon)
2) In a way P2 is easier than Blitz since there seem not to be random moves
3) the "no cat save against rabbit" problem seems not to happen here - therefore I assume it might be a problem of not finished movesearch.
What I mean is that a complete P2 might still be better than a P2.5
4) Blitz used more time for most moves - but only for noncritical moves - as soon as situations got a little more complex P2 used 30secs or more.
Meaning:
Blitz gets less than P2 in troubled situations, which might explain some moves
Blitz has a slightly deeper search in stable situations - but there is nothing to gain out of 0.5 extra ply

I really would like P3/P4 - that might be much more interesting
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jun 28th, 2005, 3:35pm

Quote:
You know how I hate to disagree with you


dont worry, I got used to it


Quote:
but toby aka 99of9 has yet to win any Mxxx challenge against any version of Bomb, at least as far as I know.  

Blind faith is a touching thing especially coming from an agnostic   but if it's a rating thing why not credit Fritz of a MHH challenge then?  

( note to 99 : This is in NO way a shot at you, just a funny remark in passing   )


I disagree umption that he will be able to play MDDC is not based on his rating but on the different playstyle of P2 compared to Blitz


Quote:
Thanks for making my point and the fact that the human player has only 15s of thinking time only adds to the difficulty.


surely 15s adds to the difficulty to play - but I doubt that counts for either you or me in this kind of challenge, since the whole point of the challenge is never to face a complicated situation - we would get killed due to material disadvantage.
15s against a random/human player might be challenging, but not against a stable bot playing at this "low" level (P2)



Quote:
How do you know that these 30sec have the same value as 30sec for blitz since they're machine dependant. For all we know p2 ran at half the speed of blitz and therefore never exceeded it's machine equivalent time.


this is based on the assumption that both are running on the same machine - and there was no other game during my experiment
Anyway you missed the point, because P2 used up to 30 secs on complicated and 3 secs on simple moves
No matter the load this shows us that a time dependant bot works just the wrong way: short sighted at the infight, but long foresight at stable position with nothing to see ahead
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jun 29th, 2005, 1:02am
If I say that somebody will PROBABLY achieve a certain goal someday than I am not exactly praising him in advance for achieving it.

To praise him for trying should be allowed.

Anyway ... I try not to use this topic to discuss me but rather the bots we play.
Certainly the majority of readers will agree.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jun 29th, 2005, 1:13am

Quote:
What keeps Bomb or any other bot to save up time when the position is stable and use let say one min. of it when the position warrants it?


you mean besides the programmer ?


Quote:
THe bot has to do what we do trying to make a good compromise between the time left and the criticality of the position.


Even if that is what should be it is not.
Bomb_Blitz does not manage its time that way.


Quote:
So it's not so much  a time-dependant problem as a bot-programming one.


Of course - but since it is implemented that way it is now a time-dependant problem.

And by the way Bomb_P2 does not search deeper in complex situations - it just takes longer.
If Bomb_Blitz would do the same it would have a fixed search depth, no ?
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Jun 29th, 2005, 2:22am
Actually the full version of bomb does already have something like this.  I'm not sure whether P2 uses it.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Jun 29th, 2005, 3:30am
PMertens:

Quote:
toby will probably prove MDDC soon



on 06/28/05 at 14:46:16, Arimanator wrote:
You know how I hate to disagree with you ;) but toby aka 99of9 has yet to win any Mxxx challenge against any version of Bomb, at least as far as I know.

Blind faith is a touching thing especially coming from an agnostic  ;) but if it's a rating thing why not credit Fritz of a MHH challenge then?  ;D


Perhaps his faith was less blind than you think.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jun 29th, 2005, 3:38am
;D good job - and fast  :o

I am proud of you - my personal hero ;-)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Jun 29th, 2005, 3:44am
You're going to end up with a lot of personal heroes if you're not careful!
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jun 29th, 2005, 3:58am
lol

dont worry, the list of people who actually try this is limited  ;D
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Jun 29th, 2005, 6:42am

on 06/29/05 at 04:25:09, Arimanator wrote:
First of all congrats.

Thanks


Quote:
But are you sure that everything went according to plan in that game?

No.  So?


Quote:
I would more describe it as a tribute to perseverance than anything else some people myself included would have long given up at that point.

Yes, some would.  On the other hand, some would have persevered by playing many times the number of games to achieve the same thing.  It's much of a muchness as far as I'm concerned.

(btw I take Omar's definition of arimaa-sportsmanship quite seriously.)


Quote:
In fact I don't see any point of doing any kind of bot bashing after a game like that.

I'm disappointed that I've put you off botbashing - I think you're quite good at it.  I'd suggest you simply add this kind of methodology to your arsenal and keep cracking at them.


Quote:
I once won against bot clueless that way ( meaning I found a huge gap in its defense while it was tearing my camp apart) and Fritz told me that I made mistakes that should have been fatal had clueless just moved a couple of pieces in a more appropriate place, I wasn't pleased by that comment at that time but I've come to see their wisdom.

Yes, I recall, the infamous game 13753.  I agree this game is similar (apart from the handicap).  In fact, I fully agree that I used tricks in this game, and exploited known weaknesses of bots.  I personally think that this is acceptable in a botbashing game.


Quote:
Now about that faith you obviously either didn't get the point or are joking.

Umm... I guess I didn't get the point.


Quote:
Just because someone is buttering you up doesn't mean that everything he says is good or even justified.

Wise words.  Respectfully, however, I disagree with your opinion that his prediction was unjustified.


Quote:
Now I've never had any esteem for soothsayers , and it would have taken one to predict that you would have won here ( Under the hypothesis that these people had any power at all).

I don't think anyone was predicting that I would do it in that exact game.  However, given that you now realise the possibility of playing to exploit this particular weakness, surely you admit that the chance of me winning was high enough to make the prediction that Paul actually made.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jun 29th, 2005, 5:27pm
Bot_Bomb P2 with MDDCR ;-) (16480)

oh and for the record:

this time I planned to do it that way  8)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Jul 1st, 2005, 12:56pm

on 06/29/05 at 17:27:50, PMertens wrote:
Bot_Bomb P2 with MDDCR ;-) (16480)


Wow, that was an amazing game. And I see it's been added to the bot bashers page. Great :-)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jul 1st, 2005, 1:05pm
and I even believe there could be one more rabbit or two ;-)

David got work to do ...
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:43pm
and now I got Bomb-Blitz MDDCR in 47 moves ... (Game 16655) ...
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Jul 4th, 2005, 12:16am

on 07/03/05 at 23:43:06, PMertens wrote:
and now I got Bomb-Blitz MDDCR in 47 moves ... (Game 16655) ...

Wow, well done, I'll take a look at what I was doing wrong!


Quote:
If Omar really told you to put up that Blitz-record than I was wrong and of course I am sorry I falsely accused you.
I just never got an official (or unofficial) statement by him. Until then:

Therefore I intend to delete that record from the botbashing page If I dont here otherwise.

I think Arimanator is right on this one.  It seems Omar is happy to have the machine dependant bots listed in a second category on the Wiki.  Look in the wiki history to see when he changed his mind.


Quote:
Anyway you will forgive me if I stop recordhunting now for a while and leave that to others.
Should you take that record away than have fun with it :-) (whoever takes it)

I think you've probably got that one for a while, but there are lots more to populate!

BTW... I propose we scrub the "beaten in fastest time" category for system-independent bots, because that category would be system dependent!  [In fact to be honest I think the fastest-time category is a little silly anyway, since it can always be beaten by following the minimum-move record at a pace as fast as your net connection could handle.  I bet I could write a bot to get all of these records :-).]
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jul 4th, 2005, 1:24am

Quote:
Wow, well done, I'll take a look at what I was doing wrong!


dont be so modest again - after all I stole your strategy ;-)


Quote:
I think Arimanator is right on this one.  It seems Omar is happy to have the machine dependant bots listed in a second category on the Wiki.  Look in the wiki history to see when he changed his mind.


Mea culpa, mea culpa
but maybe for better overview we might think about limiting the bots - there are just so many ...


Quote:
I think you've probably got that one for a while, but there are lots more to populate!


have fun - but without me  8)


Quote:
BTW... I propose we scrub the "beaten in fastest time" category for system-independent bots, because that category would be system dependent!  [In fact to be honest I think the fastest-time category is a little silly anyway, since it can always be beaten by following the minimum-move record at a pace as fast as your net connection could handle.  I bet I could write a bot to get all of these records .


I concur
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Jul 5th, 2005, 12:26am
Yes, I did ask Pat to add his record against BombBlitz.

I figure we should keep the records against the varialbe performance bots at least until they start to get old and the first section against the fixed performance bots begins to get filled.

I agree the records based on time are silly now that Toby has pointed out the flaw. I'll remove them.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Jul 5th, 2005, 12:29am
Mea culpa and sorry for that
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Jul 6th, 2005, 7:45am

on 07/05/05 at 00:26:23, omar wrote:
until ... the first section against the fixed performance bots begins to get filled.

Let's try to at least get a few markers on the board to get the bidding started.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Jul 24th, 2005, 9:26pm
I have added Arimaalon and Arimaazon to the Wiki page, since each has hundreds of games by now.  I can't get the material handicap records from the database, though.  99of9, didn't you beat Arimaalon at some ridiculous material odds?
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Jul 25th, 2005, 4:01am
I can't remember actually.  I think my biggest odds were always shallowblue.  So don't worry about it - if I remember I'll post them.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Jul 27th, 2005, 6:42pm

on 07/24/05 at 21:26:34, Fritzlein wrote:
99of9, didn't you beat Arimaalon at some ridiculous material odds?


I found the games and added them to the botbashing page.  You won with only the elephant and eight rabbits left.  I wonder how that could be improved.  Perhaps using only an elephant and seven rabbits?  But that would leave a hole, which would be tricky.   Hmm...  
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Jul 27th, 2005, 8:41pm
Ahhh yes.

I expect it could be done with less than 8 rabbits... but it might need a different approach - it definitely wouldn't have the safety of knowing that your backline was complete.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Aug 2nd, 2005, 9:58pm
Yes, go ahead and add that.

Toby was also suggesting a seperate section for misc. bot bashing acheivements. A seperate Wiki page for the monthly bot bashing challenge might also be a good place to add such games.

Also we probably should make a Wiki page for describing and displaying the various superstratagies.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Aug 2nd, 2005, 11:15pm

on 08/01/05 at 14:28:05, Arimanator wrote:
Victory by immobilization with no pieces lost by either side.

Of course that means that my record appears in 3 categories, but I believe it's only fair since one could win one category and not the other 2.

The same could be said for "Victory by goal with no pieces lost by either side."

Then we would have 3 no-pieces-lost categories:
1) No pieces lost, overall
2) No pieces lost, goal
3) No pieces lost, immobilisation

The least interesting of these three categories would be #1 because you could always figure it out from the other two.

So, since you have put in #3, I propose putting in #2 and cutting out #1 (for any bot where your special kind of victory is achieved).
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Aug 3rd, 2005, 2:11am

on 08/03/05 at 00:32:06, Arimanator wrote:
This is a matter of opinion but I believe that the "No pieces lost" of the hall is implicitly a "no pieces lost overall" hence the stance I've taken which flows logically from that assumption.

You can add if you wish a "no pieces lost goal" but, with all due respect, it seems a little ridiculous since, up until now, every win without exception has been a "no pieces lost goal" win, which intuitively induce the notion that it is a lot less remarkable than a "no pieces lost immobilization" which your option would somewhat deny.

I believe that adding a "no pieces lost goal" will only add confusion to people's mind making them think that there's nothing remarkable in adding "No pieces" to "Immobilization" when to my knowledge mine is the only one on record.

I apologize to everyone around here that to make my point (or so I hope) I had to make such a display of egregious immodesty but I cannot think of any other way.

Besides if you're worried about adding new lines in every bot list of record, I believe we don't have to.

The P3's list for instance is incomplete and is most likely to stay that way for months or even years.

To say nothing of the P4's which will sooner or later get Fritzlein game's result, (hopefully in the no pieces lost immobilization category  ;) )

Anyway we don't have to add that line to every bot's list only the ones to which there'll be at least one occurence of it being achieved.

You also talked about the lone elephant challenge, but this is not a PX challenge (so far) and I believe it would violate one of the most basic principle of the hall to put under the same title PX and non PX games when Omar explicitely put them apart in that page. ( Same thing about inducing confusion into people's minds)

If you want to add the lone elephant to the blitz's list be my guest but please don't mingle moody bots with reliable ones or you run the risk of making the whole thing meaningless.

Did I get my point across? ( I anxioulsy hope so).


It appears you have misunderstood my posting, I'm sorry I did not make it clear enough.  I'll have another try at clarifying my position:

You have added in a new category.  I accept that.  Earlier on the game chat I was arguing that this was likely to remain a rarity (through lack of attempts) and so should be put on a special challenges page like the rabbit-pulling challenge, rather than being associated with each and every bot.  However Omar is happy for you to put it into the main lists, and I accept that.

Now that it is in, we have 2 no-pieces-lost categories, namely:
No-Pieces-Lost Overall
and
No-Pieces-Lost Immobilisation

However we could choose an alternative pair, namely:
No-Pieces-Lost Goal
and
No-Pieces-Lost Immobilisation

Of these two options, the latter gives more information, whilst using up the same number of lines on the page.  If you really want to know the No-Pieces-Lost Overall record, you can always work it out from the other two.

Therefore I propose that we list this latter pair rather than the former pair.

It has nothing to do with which is rarer, or which usually takes more moves, or which has been done more often until now.

My proposal is in keeping with the way we do the Pieces-Lost categories.  We have these categories:

Immobilisation
and
Goal

rather than the categories:

Immobilisation
and
Overall

It's quite straightforward set theory, nothing to get heated up about.  I can reply to each of your points in detail if you'd like me to, but I think you missed the thrust of my original post, so hopefully this will not be necessary.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Aug 3rd, 2005, 2:37am

On a completely unrelated note:


on 08/03/05 at 00:32:06, Arimanator wrote:
You also talked about the lone elephant challenge, but this is not a PX challenge (so far) ...

If you want to add the lone elephant to the blitz's list be my guest

Actually if my memory serves me correctly the lone elephant challenge was from a time in the distant past when neither the PX's nor Blitz (nor Arimanator!) existed.  It was proposed originally against the tournament level bomb (and perhaps speedy).
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Aug 3rd, 2005, 3:08am

on 08/03/05 at 02:41:53, Arimanator wrote:
Please 99, first of all there was nothing heated up in my answer to you,. It was a civil and ordinary response and an effort to get my opinion across nothing more.

Sorry, I didn't mean in the angry way, I meant in the excited way... the stream of words just seemed a little excessive for the size of the topic.


Quote:
in my opinion a Hall of fame is not only and even more so not mainly about transmitting information, it's about awarding people who did something out of the ordinary.

Sure, and under my scheme the fastest immobilisation without loss will certainly be listed and receive glory.  My scheme is actually often awarding one more type of achievement than yours is.  Namely Belbo-style rabbit punching.  Perhaps that cannot be done as quickly as immobilisation can be, but that does not mean that doing it fast is not an achievement worth noting.  If it can be noted using the same number of lines, then the conclusion is very obvious.


Quote:
although please !!! give people some credit to deduce by themselves that if the overall is different from the immobilization then it must be that it is by goal.

So what it's all about is not really about information since that information is there for the getting anyway

Ahh... sometimes the information is there for the getting under your scheme, but sometimes it is not.  As an example, please can you tell me what the No-Pieces-Lost-Goal record is based on these two lines:

Win by immobilization in fewest moves with no pieces lost by either side: *Arimanator in 27
Win in fewest moves with no pieces lost by either side: * Arimanator in 27

Well??  Clearly we have sometimes lost highly glorious information about whoever the best rabbit-puncher was.

My scheme never loses this information, and the category it leaves out can always be directly inferred.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Aug 3rd, 2005, 3:18am

on 08/03/05 at 03:08:48, Arimanator wrote:
I don't see how what you added contradicts a iota of what I said before, these bots are NOT PX bots so the question of mingling them with the PX is as objectionable as the for the blitz.

I agree with you.  I have never suggested "mingling" the rabbit-pulling challenge into the main list.  It was a special challenge, and I agree with Omar that it should be on a monthly challenge list.  I was merely correcting your misunderstanding that it was tightly-focussed on Bomb_Blitz.


Quote:
And I don't see the point in giving performances against bots that are not currently on line since people can't verify by themselves how difficult it is to beat them, for all they know it could be copies of shallowblue.

Fair point, but I think there is a place for monthly challenges.  Think of them as somewhat akin to Player of the Month.  We have no idea how good their competition was, but we do know that they were the best at the time.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Aug 3rd, 2005, 3:29am
I believe you both made your point.

How about gathering the opinion from other players and deciding by vote - or by omar ;-)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Aug 3rd, 2005, 3:39am

on 08/03/05 at 03:23:38, Arimanator wrote:
I believe that for the goal  "no pieces" to be worth citing it should be faster than the immobilization one.

I agree that no-pieces-goal seems EASIER than no-pieces-immobilisation, but that does not necessarily mean that it should be FASTER.  In fact the one data point we have so far would suggest the contrary ;-).  Given that you said the board is about recognising achievements, I find this opinion of yours that a fast rabbit punch is no achievement of note quite strange.


Quote:
Would you for the sake of "information" also argue that the "missing pieces immobilization" should also appear if it is done in more moves than the "no pieces" one

No, stylistically one is a superset of the other.  If I can produce a winning game without losing a piece, then I can always win with losing a piece in at most one move longer (and I can present an algorithm to show how to map from one to another... it's called one move suicide :-)).

In the (no-loss) case of immobilisation vs goal, it it not even clear which should be faster against a good bot.  Stylistically they are diammetrically opposed (they even use different "superstrategies").  Do you really think goal is a superset of immobilisation??  Surely not.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Aug 3rd, 2005, 3:43am

on 08/03/05 at 03:29:28, PMertens wrote:
I believe you both made your point.

Yes, at this point I believe Arimanator now understands my original post.


Quote:
How about gathering the opinion from other players and deciding by vote - or by omar ;-)

Agreed.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by PMertens on Aug 3rd, 2005, 3:58pm
There are several different ways to win:

* rabbit reaches goal
* opponent is immobilized
(* opponent runs out of time )
(* opponent repeats position )
(* opponent resigns )

Currently we consider victory by goal (which is immobilization AND rabbit) and immobilization.


There are several different "handicaps":

* material
* no piece lost
* no piece crosses line before all enemy pieces except the phant are dead
* all rabbits on second row
* reduced number of steps per move
* whatever else can be considered as a handicap ...

Currently we consider material and no piece list handicap on the botbashing page.
The question is wether or not to add the other handicaps as well.

There are Px and system dependent bots.
I believe they stay as clearly seperated as they are now.
(or the system dependent bots could be completely removed since their records are unfair anyway)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by 99of9 on Aug 3rd, 2005, 6:42pm

on 08/03/05 at 03:58:39, Arimanator wrote:
I'll agree to 2 lines

"Goal no pieces" and "Freeze no pieces"

But that means that the whole Hall should be modified in accordance otherwise people new to this game won't know if a win is "by goal"  or "by immobilization" since it's never said, I'll let you do the ground work for that otherwise modifing it only in Bomb P2 is misleading to say the least.

Is that ok with you 99?

Or would you like some tea?

Yes, of course I am happy to make the changes (presuming there are no objections from others?)  And yes, you are right that I needed to go and make some tea :-) (then my wife needed the computer).

I will try to get around to replying to all the stuff about the "special challenges" list soon.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Arimanator on Aug 22nd, 2005, 1:58am
I've added Bomb2005CC on the list ( abiding by Omar's wishes in one of his game comments, by the way).

Given that it is the strongest variable performance bot, I don't see why it should be excluded from the hall.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Aug 22nd, 2005, 9:50pm
I think at least the "fewest move win" catagory should be added on the bot bashing page for all of the 2005CC bots. The games can be found using the bot's game record.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Arimanator on Aug 24th, 2005, 8:24am

on 08/22/05 at 21:50:13, omar wrote:
I think at least the "fewest move win" catagory should be added on the bot bashing page for all of the 2005CC bots. The games can be found using the bot's game record.


As a gesture of good citizenship  ;) I've done just that.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Aug 27th, 2005, 11:11am

on 08/24/05 at 08:24:55, Arimanator wrote:
As a gesture of good citizenship  ;) I've done just that.


Thanks Pat, I appreciate it.

Also it would be nice if we preserve the list of old records on a seperate page, but linked near the current record. So before replacing the current record with a new one, the current one should be copied over to the old records list. This would provide a nice historical history of the record.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Aug 27th, 2005, 3:08pm

on 08/02/05 at 21:58:05, omar wrote:
Also we probably should make a Wiki page for describing and displaying the various superstratagies.


I've started doing this. The page is called BotSlayer.

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/twiki/bin/view/Arimaa/BotSlayer

If I missed some strategies, please let me know. Or just go ahead and add them.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Aug 27th, 2005, 6:12pm
I think you missed EH attack followed by smothering the hostage-holding elephant.  It's conceptually rather different than collecting little pieces for material advantage, although it starts the same way.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Arimanator on Aug 29th, 2005, 3:46am

on 08/27/05 at 11:11:26, omar wrote:
...Also it would be nice if we preserve the list of old records on a seperate page, but linked near the current record. So before replacing the current record with a new one, the current one should be copied over to the old records list. This would provide a nice historical history of the record.


I've started that up with Bomb P2, with my own records (no one around here supected me to be a saint,did one?), doing that for everyone seems like a job for Hercules although in the long run I intend to do some of it, not ALL of it tho  ;). If somebody wants to chip in if only for their own records, be my guest.  :)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Arimanator on Aug 29th, 2005, 5:26am
About the botslayers I believe Belbo's historical game against Bomb would deserve to be listed in the category of deliberate win by smother which I think, as noted by 99, is a strategy of its own very different from goal seeking.

A footnote about the no piece taken subcategory would seem also to be deserving of existence.*

*It would appear that I am in a bombastic mood today.  ;)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Sep 2nd, 2005, 2:26pm

on 08/27/05 at 18:12:00, Fritzlein wrote:
I think you missed EH attack followed by smothering the hostage-holding elephant.  It's conceptually rather different than collecting little pieces for material advantage, although it starts the same way.


Yes, I did initially. But shortly thereafter I also realized that there are three distinct variations to the HEart Attack strategy. The one where the elephant gets flooded with minor pieces is called the Congestive HEart Attack :-)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Sep 2nd, 2005, 2:30pm

on 08/29/05 at 03:46:07, Arimanator wrote:
I've started that up with Bomb P2, with my own records (no one around here supected me to be a saint,did one?), doing that for everyone seems like a job for Hercules although in the long run I intend to do some of it, not ALL of it tho  ;). If somebody wants to chip in if only for their own records, be my guest.  :)


Thanks a bunch Pat. I really appreciate it.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Sep 2nd, 2005, 2:34pm

on 08/29/05 at 05:26:09, Arimanator wrote:
About the botslayers I believe Belbo's historical game against Bomb would deserve to be listed in the category of deliberate win by smother which I think, as noted by 99, is a strategy of its own very different from goal seeking.


You're right I totally forgot about that one. And it's such a distinct and neat strategy. I'll add it, if no one else has done it already.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Sep 9th, 2005, 2:04am
I notice that among the bot-bashing strategies listed, there is no mention of the "only the elephant crosses the midline" strategy, proposed by 99of9 and finally accomplished by Arimanator.  Admittedly, that is more of a restriction/handicap than a strategy, and it is only proven again Bomb, but the point is that there is a way to be safe and gradually build up an advantage that doesn't expose any pieces to danger.

When the next version of Bomb comes out and we are trying all of the old strategies to see which ones still work, rabbit-pulling will be an extremely important litmus test, because it is completely distinct from Bomb's ability to handle the E+H attack.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Arimanator on Sep 15th, 2005, 8:57pm
I've decided to put my record against the false bot Arimaanator on the list. I believe I've found the correct designation for it.  ;)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Sep 24th, 2005, 5:11am

on 09/09/05 at 02:04:08, Fritzlein wrote:
I notice that among the bot-bashing strategies listed, there is no mention of the "only the elephant crosses the midline" strategy, proposed by 99of9 and finally accomplished by Arimanator.  Admittedly, that is more of a restriction/handicap than a strategy, and it is only proven again Bomb, but the point is that there is a way to be safe and gradually build up an advantage that doesn't expose any pieces to danger.


Feel free to add to the BotSlayer page. Otherwise if you can give me some game ids showing this strategy, I will add it.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Sep 28th, 2005, 12:12am

on 09/24/05 at 05:11:36, omar wrote:
Feel free to add to the BotSlayer page. Otherwise if you can give me some game ids showing this strategy, I will add it.


It was gameid 15402.  See also 14996.  These important games somehow slipped our collective memory.  (Arimanator is too modest to repost his accomplishments after deleting the record of them.  ;-))  I know that nobody did this before Arimanator, and I doubt anyone has done it since.

For the purposes of the BotSlayer strategy page the relevant thing is not the amazing stricture under which Arimanator operated, but that Bomb can be beaten by defensive play with this tiniest dribble of offense.  It isn't flashy like mutual massacre or immonokill, but you can use your elephant to keep your pieces from being dragged out, and Bomb will NEVER generate an offense.  This is strategically very important, because for Fotland to fix it will probably require a totally different insight than to fix the HEart trouble.

I guess this strategy should be tested against Bomb2005CC, or more to the point, the most current Bomb when Fotland puts it back on line in November.
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by omar on Oct 2nd, 2005, 12:47pm
Thanks for game number Karl, but 15402 is not one of Arimanator's games.

I think 14996 and your recent one against Bomb2005CC should serve as good examples of this strategy.

I was thinking of calling it 'Nickle and Dime' because this approach slowly traps one minor piece at a time, but after a while it adds up :-)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Oct 2nd, 2005, 7:56pm

on 10/02/05 at 12:47:57, omar wrote:
Thanks for game number Karl, but 15402 is not one of Arimanator's games.


oops, sorry, I meant game 15042
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Arimanator on Oct 3rd, 2005, 3:36am

on 10/02/05 at 12:47:57, omar wrote:
...I was thinking of calling it 'Nickle and Dime' ...


Apt name and funny at the same time, I couldn't come up with something like that to save my life.  :)
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by grey_0x2A on Oct 10th, 2005, 12:03pm
Has anyone done total removal before? I just did it vs. Arimaazilla in 27822.
The elephant suicide and last dog take out where bot errors. But I think it is
possible to do. Though it likely will be a long game....
Title: Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
Post by Fritzlein on Oct 10th, 2005, 6:23pm

on 10/10/05 at 12:03:23, grey_0x2A wrote:
Has anyone done total removal before?


Yes, Arimanator played some total annihilation games before.  Please feel free to add your achievement on the BotBashing Hall of Fame page under Arimaazilla.


Arimaa Forum » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.