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

        Arimaa >> General Discussion >> Bot Bashing Records Discussion 
        
(Message started by: mistre on Apr 3rd, 2008, 1:37pm)
Title: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by mistre on Apr 3rd, 2008, 1:37pm
As some of you know, I volunteered to update the bot bashers page found on the Arimaa wiki here - http://arimaa.com/arimaa/twiki/bin/view/Arimaa/BotBashers

Well, I have finished adding the information that Fritzlein provided through game 72910 which I think is all games through March 22, 2008.

If you have made any records after that date, please post them here.

Also, handicap games can not be queried for, so if you have any information concerning old handicap records, please post those as well.  As you can see, there are some records on the page that are unaccounted for.

It turns out that there are quite a few records that are currently vacant, so now that you have an accurate up-to-date page to refer to - let's see some bot bashing!
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by mistre on Apr 3rd, 2008, 1:51pm
I would also like to add links to the old bot bashing contests on the botbashers page.  I believe there were two - 3 steps and elephant can't go past the midline.  I saw those pages at one time, but I can't seem to find them again.  Can someone post the links here?
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 4th, 2008, 1:50am
Here is the three step contest thread.

Won by Swynndla!

I bumped it on top of the threads.

The winning games are posted chronologically in the thread.

http://arimaa.com/arimaa/forum/cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=talk;action=display;num=1145566850;start=0#0
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 4th, 2008, 2:03am
For the elephant can't pass the midline contest Idahoev made a special page with the rules along with all the results in a grid.

Here it is:

http://idahoev.com/arimaa/challenge_2006_05.html
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by 99of9 on Apr 5th, 2008, 6:34am
M handicap against bot_Loc2006P2 game 73525
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 6th, 2008, 2:14pm
against ArimaaScoreP1:
EMHHDDR with silver, game 73617 in 14 moves.

Bis repetita placent.  ;D
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 12:21am
against ArimaaScoreP1:
EMHHDDR with silver, game 73658 in 12 moves.

I knew it could be improved.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 4:34am
against ArimaaScoreP1:
EMHHDDR with gold, game 73664 in 18 moves.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by 99of9 on Apr 7th, 2008, 8:00am
against ArimaaScoreP1:  
EMHHDDCRR with gold, game 73676
EMHHDDCRR with silver, game 73675
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 11:04am
against ArimaaScoreP1:  
EMHHDDCRRR with silver, game 73708 in 27 moves
EMHHDDCRRR with gold, game 73713 in 25 moves

 ;D
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by aaaa on Apr 7th, 2008, 1:19pm
Not to detract from the fine achievements here, but I've witnessed some sloppiness in effecting the handicap in the beginning. I believe the pieces should not only be killed off in as few steps as possible, but also in order from strongest to weakest, like so:

  • 1st step: elephant
  • 2nd step: camel
  • 3rd and 4th step: horse
  • 5rd and 6th step: other horse
  • Etc.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 2:37pm

on 04/07/08 at 13:19:18, aaaa wrote:
Not to detract from the fine achievements here, but I've witnessed some sloppiness in effecting the handicap in the beginning. I believe the pieces should not only be killed off in as few steps as possible, but also in order from strongest to weakest, like so:

  • 1st step: elephant
  • 2nd step: camel
  • 3rd and 4th step: horse
  • 5rd and 6th step: other horse
  • Etc.

It doesn't matter to me; and a quick look at ALL the handicap games played so far, shows that it never mattered to anyone who's ever been an active contributor to multiple handicap games. Unless you can prove that it requires exceptional Arimaa skills to put your pieces on the board in a certain order, your suggestion is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by aaaa on Apr 7th, 2008, 3:35pm
I do think it's relevant what I've said. The more pieces that are to be killed off influence the game, the less the handicap means something. Otherwise, where would you draw the line after which piece suicides no longer "count"? Even if you disagree with my maximalist proposal above, there should still be hard rules governing the eligibility of handicap games.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 3:58pm

on 04/07/08 at 15:35:03, aaaa wrote:
I do think it's relevant what I've said. The more pieces that are to be killed off influence the game, the less the handicap means something. Otherwise, where would you draw the line after which piece suicides no longer "count"? Even if you disagree with my maximalist proposal above, there should still be hard rules governing the eligibility of handicap games.

When you play poker; do you impose that one uncovers his cards in a certain order for his hand to be eligible?

And why limiting your imposition to the order, why not also oblige that the pieces to be killed move first from left to right and that the pieces on a higher level be killed first and then the ones underneath etc... After all that's the way we write. Why arbitrarily fix the order and not the movement?

As I said before, unless you can prove that it requires particular skills to put your pieces on a board in a certain order your suggestion is irrelevant and arbitrary since as I showed you can also impose the pieces to be thrown in the trap clockwise for instance, or some other mandate that tickles your fancy.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by jdb on Apr 7th, 2008, 4:13pm

on 04/07/08 at 15:58:38, Arimabuff wrote:
When you play poker; do you impose that one uncovers his cards in a certain order for his hand to be eligible?

And why limiting your imposition to the order, why not also oblige that the pieces to be killed move first from left to right and that the pieces on a higher level be killed first and then the ones underneath etc... After all that's the way we write. Why arbitrarily fix the order and not the movement?

As I said before, unless you can prove that it requires particular skills to put your pieces on a board in a certain order your suggestion is irrelevant and arbitrary since as I showed you can also impose the pieces to be thrown in the trap clockwise for instance, or some other mandate that tickles your fancy.


The opponent does not know its a handicap game.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by aaaa on Apr 7th, 2008, 4:17pm
It'll be hard to convince me of the fact that it wouldn't be tougher if one could properly handicap oneself by foregoing pieces right at the start of the game.
Take your game 73713 for example. You stopped being forthright in killing off your pieces on 6w to prevent bot_ArimaaScoreP1 from goaling, which makes it dubious to consider two additional rabbits as being part of the handicap.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 4:42pm

on 04/07/08 at 16:17:55, aaaa wrote:
It'll be hard to convince me of the fact that it wouldn't be tougher if one could properly handicap oneself by foregoing pieces right at the start of the game.
Take your game 73713 for example. You stopped being forthright in killing off your pieces on 6w to prevent bot_ArimaaScoreP1 from goaling, which makes it dubious to consider two additional rabbits as being part of the handicap.

As I said almost any game that involves multiple killings contains extra steps here and there.

Do you wish to invalidate them all?
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by 99of9 on Apr 7th, 2008, 4:46pm

on 04/07/08 at 16:17:55, aaaa wrote:
It'll be hard to convince me of the fact that it wouldn't be tougher if one could properly handicap oneself by foregoing pieces right at the start of the game.

Sometimes it would be easier to forgo pieces immediately (in the setup), because the opponent wouldn't have had any time to advance rabbits.  But changing the setup interface is a big deal, so I think of it as a slightly different issue to the order and speed in which pieces are suicided.


Quote:
I believe the pieces should not only be killed off in as few steps as possible, but also in order from strongest to weakest

Since all the handicap pieces are considered to be a handicap, I view them as a group, and don't think that the order of killing is part of the criteria for it being a handicap.  Therefore I view it as part of a player's strategic prerogative to decide what order to kill the pieces in.

The speed with which they are killed is a real issue, because in the most extreme case you could play with all your pieces, and only start suiciding once the game was over.  There are a few possible choices for clear-cut rules here:

"Minimum number of steps" seems a little bit difficult to verify to me.  Are we really going to penalize someone for setting up badly such that a suicide piece was further away than it needed to be?  Does the minimum include maximizing the help from the opponent?

"Every whole move must include a suicide" is a bit too loose for my liking, because you could still get a fair bit of advancing and killing done while still suiciding 1 per move.

"All the first steps should be in the direction of a trap to suicide in (or to allow another piece to do so), before any other moves are made." Seems like a good general principle to me.

I'd be interested to hear other definitions of principles.


Quote:
Take your game 73713 for example. You stopped being forthright in killing off your pieces on 6w to prevent bot_ArimaaScoreP1 from goaling, which makes it dubious to consider two additional rabbits as being part of the handicap.


I agree that move 6w has issues and doesn't satisfy my definition, but arimaanator may have a different principle that it is consistent with.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 4:54pm

on 04/07/08 at 16:46:58, 99of9 wrote:
...I agree that move 6w has issues and doesn't satisfy my definition, but arimaanator may have a different principle that it is consistent with.

99 I am surprised at your remark given the sloppy way you yourself used the sacrificing of your pieces in your EMHHDDRR games. You moved your cat that WASNT to be sacrificied before you can throw your horse in the trap. I am really surprise that you would say something like that when YOU are the one who started the sloppiness here.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by 99of9 on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:00pm

on 04/07/08 at 16:42:45, Arimabuff wrote:
As I said almost any game that involves multiple killings contains extra steps here and there.


I took a look through this game to find a tricky example:
http://www.arimaa.com/arimaa/games/jsShowGame.cgi?gid=73676&s=w

And found that on 6w I had to "waste" some steps, because of what the bot did on move 2b.  Was I supposed to predict that and make a preventative early suicide?  Or do the quickest possible suicides as I actually did?
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by 99of9 on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:03pm

on 04/07/08 at 16:54:26, Arimabuff wrote:
99 I am surprised at your remark given the sloppy way you yourself used the sacrificing of your pieces in your EMHHDDRR games. You moved your cat that WASNT to be sacrificied before you can throw your horse in the trap. I am really surprise that you would say something like that when YOU are the one who started the sloppiness here.

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.  I figured it was better not to interfere with the opponent's pieces because of exactly this issue.  Notice that all steps satisfy my criteria as stated (but I'm not guaranteeing that was achieved in all games).
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:07pm

on 04/07/08 at 17:00:04, 99of9 wrote:
I took a look through this game to find a tricky example:
http://www.arimaa.com/arimaa/games/jsShowGame.cgi?gid=73676&s=w

And found that on 6w I had to "waste" some steps, because of what the bot did on move 2b.  Was I supposed to predict that and make a preventative early suicide?  Or do the quickest possible suicides as I actually did?

If my game is invalid because of extra steps then so is yours. You shouldn't have put the cat in the way of the horse in the first place.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by aaaa on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:10pm

on 04/07/08 at 16:42:45, Arimabuff wrote:
As I said almost any game that involves multiple killings contains extra steps here and there.

Do you wish to invalidate them all?


You sound like there are physical prizes at stake here. It's up to each person himself to decide whether to accept a handicap game as "legitimate". I'm simply pointing out for the sake of fairness that a lack of clarity in how much leeway there is in bringing about the handicap will naturally result in a difference of standards amongst players and thus effectively a difference in handicap despite not being labeled as such.

At the very least, Arimabuff, I feel you are obligated to at least formulate the rules you have set for yourself here.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:10pm

on 04/07/08 at 17:00:04, 99of9 wrote:
I took a look through this game to find a tricky example:
http://www.arimaa.com/arimaa/games/jsShowGame.cgi?gid=73676&s=w

And found that on 6w I had to "waste" some steps, because of what the bot did on move 2b.  Was I supposed to predict that and make a preventative early suicide?  Or do the quickest possible suicides as I actually did?

If you add steps because of something the bot did then it's no different from what I did. You can't have it both ways. Either you are strict for both of us or for NONE of us. It's VERY BAD form that you start having principles only when it suits your purpose.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:16pm

on 04/07/08 at 17:10:08, aaaa wrote:
You sound like there are physical prizes at stake here. It's up to each person himself to decide whether to accept a handicap game as "legitimate". I'm simply pointing out for the sake of fairness that a lack of clarity in how much leeway there is in bringing about the handicap will naturally result in a difference of standards amongst players and thus effectively a difference in handicap despite not being labeled as such.

At the very least, Arimabuff, I feel you are obligated to at least formulate the rules you have set for yourself here.

In saw in 99's sloppy game where he added extra steps because it suited his purpose, license for me to do likewise in comparable limits. If 99 can be inconsistent when it comes to his games and strict about the games of others then it's more HIS problem than mine. I didn't say anything about his game even though I saw the sloppiness, I didn't think that he'd have pulled “the holier than thou” trick on me after that. I can see I was mistaken.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by aaaa on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:22pm
So can I conclude then you don't have any hard rules concerning initial handicapping or can we just say it's just some very liberal one, like all suicides being counted before a piece has moved beyond the second row?
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:34pm

on 04/07/08 at 17:22:19, aaaa wrote:
So can I conclude then you don't have any hard rules concerning initial handicapping or can we just say it's just some very liberal one, like all suicides being counted before a piece has moved beyond the second row?

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.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by 99of9 on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:35pm

on 04/07/08 at 17:10:37, Arimabuff wrote:
If you add steps because of something the bot did then it's no different from what I did.

Well it is different.  My move satisfies my definition, yours doesn't satisfy my definition.  As I acknowledged before, you may have a definition it is consistent with, but you haven't given your definition.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:37pm

on 04/07/08 at 17:35:38, 99of9 wrote:
Well it is different.  My move satisfies my definition, yours doesn't satisfy my definition.  As I acknowledged before, you may have a definition it is consistent with, but you haven't given your definition.

Read my post before this one.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:38pm

on 04/07/08 at 17:35:38, 99of9 wrote:
Well it is different.  My move satisfies my definition, yours doesn't satisfy my definition.  As I acknowledged before, you may have a definition it is consistent with, but you haven't given your definition.

If you can have YOUR DEFINITIONS, so can I.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by 99of9 on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:41pm

on 04/07/08 at 17:37:43, 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.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by 99of9 on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:43pm

on 04/07/08 at 17:34:08, Arimabuff wrote:
but that the 4 steps can't form an actual move.

Can you clarify what you mean by this part?
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:47pm

on 04/07/08 at 17:41:06, 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:48pm

on 04/07/08 at 17:43:33, 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.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 5:58pm

on 04/07/08 at 17:03:14, 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.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by aaaa on Apr 7th, 2008, 6:11pm

on 04/07/08 at 17:34:08, 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?
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Gerenuk on Apr 7th, 2008, 6:32pm
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?
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by 99of9 on Apr 7th, 2008, 6:58pm

on 04/07/08 at 17:47:22, 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!
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 8:43pm

on 04/07/08 at 18:58:06, 99of9 wrote:
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!

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.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 7th, 2008, 9:43pm

on 04/07/08 at 18:58:06, 99of9 wrote:
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!

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?
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by mistre on Apr 7th, 2008, 9:50pm
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.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 8th, 2008, 9:13am
Ok, case closed! 99 and I both played a game that satisfies our mutual criteria. I get the gold and he gets the silver.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by 99of9 on Apr 8th, 2008, 9:32am
Yes indeed.  I think it was worthwhile to remove the ambiguity.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by mistre on Apr 8th, 2008, 10:09am
Great!  I am glad you guys were able to work it out.   :D
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 8th, 2008, 6:33pm
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.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 8th, 2008, 11:13pm

on 04/08/08 at 18:33:23, Fritzlein wrote:
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.

I can live with that. I played quite a few games to reduce my moves to a minimum so far but I decided to stop that and move on to the next handicap.

That means that Arimaascore1 is a case closed since EMHHDDCRRRR and EMHHDDCC are both impossible. The former leaves too much ground uncovered and the latter lacks the possibility to kill rabbits which is also vital.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 9th, 2008, 4:53am
I was able to beat Arimaascore2 with a EMHD handicap, three times (the last two times in a row!); but apparently as soon as I up the ante even a little bit that bot becomes a raging (as well as raving) lunatic! And won't let me catch a break. What is it about this bot's code that says "If your opponent has lost more than EMHD then pounce on him!!!" ?

Anyway, you're welcome to try.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by mistre on Apr 9th, 2008, 8:36am
Just to clarify my earlier comments - If you match your OWN handicap with fewer moves, you are welcome to have the later game linked to on the bot bashers page.  However, if you match another player's handicap with fewer moves - it does not beat his record.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 9th, 2008, 8:57am

on 04/09/08 at 08:36:20, mistre wrote:
Just to clarify my earlier comments - If you match your OWN handicap with fewer moves, you are welcome to have the later game linked to on the bot bashers page.  However, if you match another player's handicap with fewer moves - it does not beat his record.

That's what I got from your comment, but "matching your own handicap with fewer moves" is also a way of showing that the first one wasn't just a fluke, as sometimes happens in this business. It's even more of a confirmation when you renew the exploit the very next game.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 9th, 2008, 2:56pm
The more I think about it the more it becomes obvious to me that 99of9's game with shallowblue should be taken off the handicap list.

First, the bot kills off four of his pieces that he didn't have to sacrifice himself (the camel plus three rabbits).

Had he killed them himself as handicap procedure normally requires, it would have taken him with an average of three steps by piece THREE MOVES to kill them all.

In addition, the bot spends FOUR MOVES to kill the pieces that he didn't use to maneuver his OWN pieces toward a goal.

Therefore, when you think RATIONALLY about it, 99of9 got an unjustifiable bonus OF SEVEN MOVES in comparison to someone who would have killed his pieces himself and we can all see that in spite of that SEVEN MOVE delay he can barely make it to goal before the bot does.

YOU people refused my handicap game because of a lousy four steps that I slipped in there; so what do you say about a cheat of SEVEN MOVES Vis a Vis the NORMAL procedure of our newfound scrupulousness?

I say we remove that game from the handicap list otherwise all our previous conversation about the legitimacy of my game is nothing but a TRAVESTY.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by mistre on Apr 9th, 2008, 4:38pm
As great an achievement that 99of9's games against Shallowblue are, I am going to agree with Arimabuff.

At the very least, the pieces that Shallowblue takes should not count for the handicap.  Also, in one of the games, 99of9 only takes 3 steps instead of 4 twice during the sacrificing moves.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 9th, 2008, 9:16pm

on 04/09/08 at 16:38:32, mistre wrote:
...At the very least, the pieces that Shallowblue takes should not count for the handicap...

I think it goes farther than that. In the game 9391 at move 4b, 99of9 uses the dog as a tactical device, making it an active piece of the board. Indeed the dog is pushed toward a trap that isn't available in order to prevent the elephant from pushing the camel there and forcing it to use the OTHER trap. I say that that's a breach of procedure right there. Therefore, it also ends the legitimate sacrificing sequence.

However, I don't think that 99of9 would appreciate to have his game listed as a HDCCR handicap. So, I think it'd be preferable to simply remove it and put it under a new category, I'd propose the category "believe it or not". It would be composed of all the games that are both exceptional and non classable in the other categories.

There are quite a few of these games, for instance a game where the player (yours truly actually  ;D ) manages to kill ALL of Bomb's pieces except for the elephant with only HIS ELEPHANT passing the middle board. And only HIS ELEPHANT doing the killing and WITHOUT himself losing any pieces. In a way it’s the reverse of IDAHO’s Botbash where the elephant was forbidden to pass the middle line.

I believe Karl has this one on record but I can retrieve it if need be.

Anyway, my point is that these two games don't belong in the handicap category and that they may give newcomers a false sense of carelessness about our definition of a handicap game.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 9th, 2008, 10:00pm
I support the inclusion of a section of amazing exploits that don't fall into the main botbashing categories.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 10th, 2008, 3:07am

on 04/09/08 at 22:00:21, Fritzlein wrote:
I support the inclusion of a section of amazing exploits that don't fall into the main botbashing categories.

That's a far better title than the one I proposed.

Let's set some ground rules:

To enter there a game must either represent some unique exploit never to be seen in another game OR be the very first of a select few that do a similar thing.

Now of course the word exploit is open to interpretation.

I for one don't believe that using a bot's inability to play after you lost your last rabbit or a bot's randomness of moves after he is faced with an unavoidable goal to be an exploit.

I think we can all agree on that.

If nobody answers negatively to this post for the next 4 days I will consider that it is therefore unanimously adopted and make the changes myself if nobody else does.
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by 99of9 on Apr 10th, 2008, 5:40am
The overarching reason for my principle is not to suicide as fast as possible, but simply to make sure I have not "played in advance" before the "start" of the handicap game, all I have done was playing toward suicide.  In my opinion what the bot has done in that time is not relevant to whether I beat it with the handicap.  (It is also nontrivial to regulate what the bot is allowed to do in that time, because the player does not have control over what it is doing - remember we may be able to mostly predict shallowblue, but whatever rule we use should be able to apply to even human handicap games.)


on 04/07/08 at 16:46:58, 99of9 wrote:
"All the first steps should be in the direction of a trap to suicide in (or to allow another piece to do so), before any other moves are made." Seems like a good general principle to me.

I'd be interested to hear other definitions of principles.


Both shallowblue games conform to this definition.  If nobody else likes this definition (which I have tried to go by for a long time), and wants to make it stricter, please can you at least state and agree on the definition we will be going by.

By the way, if the "instant handicap" becomes technically possible, achieving such handicaps will be easier than in any of these games, because the bot will get 0 moves before starting.

Ultimately I don't really care whether or where these games are listed, but I don't agree with moving them until someone can state an elegant and simple principle that people agree on.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by 99of9 on Apr 10th, 2008, 7:40am

on 04/08/08 at 23:13:00, Arimabuff wrote:
That means that Arimaascore1 is a case closed since EMHHDDCRRRR and EMHHDDCC are both impossible. The former leaves too much ground uncovered and the latter lacks the possibility to kill rabbits which is also vital.


EMHHDDCRRRR against ArimaaScoreP1 with gold in game 73905.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by mistre on Apr 10th, 2008, 8:40am

on 04/09/08 at 22:00:21, Fritzlein wrote:
I support the inclusion of a section of amazing exploits that don't fall into the main botbashing categories.


There already is such a page - entitled UnusualGames - http://arimaa.com/arimaa/twiki/bin/view/Arimaa/UnusualGames

It would be easy to add a sub-category for Amazing Exploits and list 99of9's games against Shallow Blue among others.

I was going to add my tournament match vs Arimaa_Master where he blockaded by Elephant.  I also have a few other games that I think meet the criteria as unusual.

Capture all and only rabbits and then goal.
http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=69542

First E handicap immobilization, also unusual ending as there are no elephants on the board.  http://arimaa.com/arimaa/gameroom/comments.cgi?gid=73619
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 10th, 2008, 9:06am

on 04/10/08 at 05:40:58, 99of9 wrote:
The overarching reason for my principle is not to suicide as fast as possible, but simply to make sure I have not "played in advance" before the "start" of the handicap game, all I have done was playing toward suicide.  In my opinion what the bot has done in that time is not relevant to whether I beat it with the handicap.  (It is also nontrivial to regulate what the bot is allowed to do in that time, because the player does not have control over what it is doing - remember we may be able to mostly predict shallowblue, but whatever rule we use should be able to apply to even human handicap games.)

First of all what the bot does during your sacrificing period can't be taken for your own benefit. The sacrifices must be made by you NOT THE BOT, if the bot kills off one of your pieces he doesn't do that to do you a service. Your version of the fact would imply that since IN YOUR MIND you are sacrificing your pieces then anything the bot does for ITS OWN agenda is part of that sacrificing. That's not how it works.

Imagine that instead of a bot, you'd have a human player; do you think that he would have agreed that anything he'll kill during YOUR SACRIFICING PERIOD would be counted AGAINST HIM? And if you got him to agree to that rather crooked rule don’t you think that he would spend this time NOT KILLING any of your pieces and maneuvering instead? The rules of Arimaa do not change because of what's IN YOUR MIND at the time you play. You have to prove MATERIALLY that you are giving up your pieces, not simply say "hey, since I am sacrificing my pieces, now the bot is working for me!!!". That's ludicrous.

Same thing in Chess if you voluntarily sacrifice a piece during the game by letting your adversary take it, that never has and never will be taken as a handicap.

Following that, the three rabbits AND the camel are definitely off the table.




Quote:
Both shallowblue games conform to this definition.  If nobody else likes this definition (which I have tried to go by for a long time), and wants to make it stricter, please can you at least state and agree on the definition we will be going by.

By the way, if the "instant handicap" becomes technically possible, achieving such handicaps will be easier than in any of these games, because the bot will get 0 moves before starting.

If "instant handicap" is made possible then the games we will play then will not be taken as a competition with the games played now, we will have to create a new category called "instant handicap" to cover these NEW games. Because difficulty is part of the game and that you don't cheat your way in a hall of fame; to replace a game by one of yours, yours must ACTUALLY be harder to achieve otherwise that would be making a mockery of the whole thing.

So we will have two categories then "Old fashioned handicap” and "Instant handicap". It would be absurd to act otherwise. As I said, there must be an ACTUAL step up in difficulty for your game to replace the game that was before.


Quote:
Ultimately I don't really care whether or where these games are listed, but I don't agree with moving them until someone can state an elegant and simple principle that people agree on.


The principle is that since the bot IS NOT at your service but is supposed to work against you, to claim that a piece is part of a handicap you have to actually move it to the trap YOURSELF not let the bot help you. If it can't be done then it simply means that this particular handicap is IMPOSSIBLE with this particular bot. I don't see why we should have a problem with that.

In addition, a piece you intend to sacrifice for handicap is NOT YOURS to play with BY DEFINITION and you can't use it for obvious tactical ploy like you did with that dog to make the bot work harder to do HIS JOB of killing off your pieces.

Just the idea that YOU would claim a bot’s work as yours strikes me as so funny that I couldn't repress a chuckle while writing the preceding sentence.

I think we can tolerate a piece to be sacrificed blocking a rabbit by it's sole presence but it should be obvious that it isn't used ACTIVELY in a tactical ploy or it can no longer be claimed as part of the sacrificing sequence which we all agreed can't be sliced up in two or more... and must precede any effective tactical move that you have in mind.

Again, a bot is working FOR ITSELF, and is not at your service. Anything he takes during the sacrificing sequence is not added to your benefit. If you can't protect your OWN pieces during that period then as the say goes "Those are the breaks!"

That seems only fair to me.

You wanted a clear definition, I gave you one, and I believe that I am not the only one to think it reasonable.

Unless you find someone here to adhere to your strained principles that seem to be invented solely to justify your shallowblue games I will proceed to the changes I said.

I will wait however four days to do so as I said before.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 10th, 2008, 9:11am

on 04/10/08 at 08:40:10, mistre wrote:
...It would be easy to add a sub-category for Amazing Exploits and list 99of9's games against Shallow Blue among others...

Good idea!
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Janzert on Apr 10th, 2008, 9:38am
Here is what I personally would have used for the criteria to count for sacrifice games.

The player has to sacrifice the maximum number of pieces possible for every move at the beginning of the game (e.g in the second move the player has to sacrifice 3 pieces, 3rd move 2, 4th move 2, 5th move 1, 6th move 2, etc.). Once a move is made in which the maximum number of pieces is not sacrificed the player's pieces that have been removed from the board at that point are counted as the handicap.

I can see where the opponent could block the player from sacrificing pieces to meet the above criteria. But I think it would probably become a problem to sort out all possible situations and where to draw the line if it was expanded to try and cover those situations.

I haven't actually looked at many of the games discussed so have no idea how many would count or not by that criteria.

Janzert
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by 99of9 on Apr 10th, 2008, 9:58am

on 04/10/08 at 09:06:19, 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.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by mistre on Apr 10th, 2008, 10:26am
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!
Title: Re: Announce Bot Bashing Record - New!
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 10th, 2008, 10:29am

on 04/10/08 at 09:58:52, 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.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 10th, 2008, 11:03am

on 04/10/08 at 10:26:56, 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!!!!
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 10th, 2008, 3:35pm

on 04/10/08 at 07:40:00, 99of9 wrote:
EMHHDDCRRRR against ArimaaScoreP1 with gold in game 73905.

EMHHDDCRRRR against ArimaaScoreP1 with silver in game 73935.

;)

That one took some doing!
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by 99of9 on Apr 11th, 2008, 10:06am

on 04/10/08 at 10:26:56, 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)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by 99of9 on Apr 11th, 2008, 10:09am
shallowblue EMHHDDC with gold game 73958
shallowblue EMHHDDCR with silver game 73961
(which meet my standards but not janzert's or aaaa's)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 11th, 2008, 11:30am

on 04/11/08 at 10:06:07, 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.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 11th, 2008, 2:10pm

on 04/11/08 at 11:30:37, 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.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 11th, 2008, 5:06pm

on 04/11/08 at 14:10:52, 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.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 11th, 2008, 5:23pm

on 04/11/08 at 10:09:32, 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

;)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by mistre on Apr 11th, 2008, 6:21pm
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.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by 99of9 on Apr 11th, 2008, 6:44pm

on 04/11/08 at 11:30:37, 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.)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 12th, 2008, 12:22am

on 04/11/08 at 18:21:11, 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.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by 99of9 on Apr 12th, 2008, 1:09am

on 04/11/08 at 10:06:07, 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!).
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 12th, 2008, 2:50am

on 04/12/08 at 01:09:05, 99of9 wrote:
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!).

As I told you in a game comment I renounced my idea of a "few steps" when I realized both that I wasn't getting anywhere and that it was too vague of a rule to be acceptable. Instead, I played all of my games hence, in the spirit of never get any pull (or push) from the bot nor put in "extra steps" during the sacrificing sequence. And Instead of insisting constantly on a “modus vivendi rule” that I proposed once and NEVER benefited from you'd be well advised to take notice of my straightforwardness ever since.

I think if we authorize the kind of thing you would like us to that leaves the gate open for any kind of abuse. I never agreed to the “order” rule though, If you don't use actively your pieces before sacrificing them or if they don't get pulled by the bot's pieces then their value doesn't matter and what counts is the total of your sacrifices at the end of the sequence.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by 99of9 on Apr 12th, 2008, 3:05am
EMHHDDCRRRRR against shallowblue with gold in game 73999

EMHHDDCRRRR against shallowblue with silver in either game 73995 or game 74015 depending on whether it's allowable for bots to help pull your piece toward a suicide trap (thanks to arimanator who abstained from matching this record by his rules to give me time to convert it, so that rule ambiguity wouldn't flare up again).
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion  
Post by 99of9 on Apr 12th, 2008, 5:21am

on 04/11/08 at 11:30:37, Fritzlein wrote:
99of9, do you think beating ShallowBlue with only HRR in the initial setup is possible?

After this game http://www.arimaa.com/arimaa/games/jsShowGame.cgi?gid=73999&s=w  I am now certain that instant-handicap with only CRR against shallowblue is possible, and could predict the exact moves if it would help you (there is a rabbit I could have left out, but I did not have time to suicide it).
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 12th, 2008, 5:55am

on 04/12/08 at 03:05:26, 99of9 wrote:
EMHHDDCRRRRR against shallowblue with gold in game 73999

EMHHDDCRRRR against shallowblue with silver in either game 73995 or game 74015 depending on whether it's allowable for bots to help pull your piece toward a suicide trap (thanks to arimanator who abstained from matching this record by his rules to give me time to convert it, so that rule ambiguity wouldn't flare up again).

Ever hear of Occam's razor? When you have, two solutions to a problem take the one involving the less convoluted set of rules and it doesn't hurt that that solution is also the less controversial.


Number 74015 is the game to choose, definitely.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion  
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 12th, 2008, 5:58am

on 04/12/08 at 05:21:35, 99of9 wrote:
After this game http://www.arimaa.com/arimaa/games/jsShowGame.cgi?gid=73999&s=w  I am now certain that instant-handicap with only CRR against shallowblue is possible, and could predict the exact moves if it would help you (there is a rabbit I could have left out, but I did not have time to suicide it).

I for one believe that it's a great deal more impressive to achieve CRRR WITHOUT the bot's help than HRR with a lot of it.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion  
Post by 99of9 on Apr 12th, 2008, 6:15am

on 04/12/08 at 05:58:16, Arimabuff wrote:
I for one believe that it's a great deal more impressive to achieve CRRR WITHOUT the bot's help than HRR with a lot of it.

Excluding the issue of bot help, DAPE agrees with you that CRRR is harder than HRR, but FAME thinks the opposite.

This raises the issue of which handicaps are actually better than others.  So far everyone has always tried for an obviously better handicap, but at some point someone might try different combinations.  I suggest we only replace an earlier handicap if the majority of published material eval systems agree it is better.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 12th, 2008, 6:31am
EMHHDDCRRRRR (IOW there was only CRRR left) against shallowblue with silver in game 74022.

Thanks in large part to 99of9 who didn't try too hard to beat me to the punch. :)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion  
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 12th, 2008, 6:39am

on 04/12/08 at 06:15:02, 99of9 wrote:
...I suggest we only replace an earlier handicap if the majority of published material eval systems agree it is better.

I believe the right thing to do, would be to publish a list as exhaustive as possible of handicap inequalities, which would give people an idea about what beats what in matter of handicap.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by 99of9 on Apr 12th, 2008, 6:48am
EMHHDDCRRRRRR (IOW with only CRR) against shallowblue with gold in game 74023.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion  
Post by 99of9 on Apr 12th, 2008, 6:51am

on 04/12/08 at 06:39:46, Arimabuff wrote:
I believe the right thing to do, would be to publish a list as exhaustive as possible of handicap inequalities, which would give people an idea about what beats what in matter of handicap.

The problem is there are a combinatorial number of possible choices of material, so the list would be extremely long, and there would be many cases where people would argue about which was actually better.

The advantage of using the computer evaluation methods is that anyone can check them out quickly and definatively:
http://arimaa.janzert.com/fame.html
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 12th, 2008, 7:03am

on 04/12/08 at 06:48:57, 99of9 wrote:
EMHHDDCRRRRRR (IOW with only CRR) against shallowblue with gold in game 74023.

Awesome!

And complying EVEN to aaaa's most drastic rules at that! ;)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by 99of9 on Apr 12th, 2008, 7:05am
I guess there's no point listing the HRR game anymore (was that with gold too??)... even on another page.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 12th, 2008, 7:15am

on 04/12/08 at 07:05:40, 99of9 wrote:
I guess there's no point listing the HRR game anymore (was that with gold too??)... even on another page.

My thoughts exactly! You buried it.

Btw, I've already put both our records on record. ;)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 12th, 2008, 10:21am

on 04/12/08 at 06:48:57, 99of9 wrote:
EMHHDDCRRRRRR (IOW with only CRR) against shallowblue with gold in game 74023.

Wow.  I'm speechless.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 12th, 2008, 11:37am
EMHHDDCRRRRR (IOW with CRRR) against ArimaaScoreP1 with gold in game 74048.

(You were right 99of9, it was time to move on.  ;))
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 12th, 2008, 1:40pm

on 04/12/08 at 10:21:09, Fritzlein wrote:
Wow.  I'm speechless.

Do you realize how much superior this game is to 99's old one?

After the sacrificial part is over there is only 6 moves and two steps left for gold to make and during that brief period, gold makes two indispensable sacrifices and ends up with only one single rabbit, not because he threw his pieces in a trap by bravado but because it was all part of an intricate plan.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 14th, 2008, 7:10am
Arimaalon EMHDDCC with gold game 74092
Arimaalon EMHDDCC with silver game 74096


Aamira2006P1 EHH with gold game 74100
Aamira2006P1 EHH with silver game 74103

Loc2005P1 EHH with gold game 74105
Loc2005P1 EHH with silver game 74108

Arimaazilla E with gold game 74114
Arimaazilla ED with gold game 74122
Arimaazilla EH with gold game 74141

Arimaazilla EHD with gold game 74158

Arimaazilla E with silver game 74124
Arimaazilla ED with silver game 74138
Arimaazilla EH with silver game 74142

Arimaazilla EHD with silver game 74159

I've made the substitution on the page.

According to mistre (and Fame), I've met the minimum required to qualify as a record for both colors.

Take note that my win against silver is the very next game to my win against gold. ;)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 14th, 2008, 3:56pm
Arimaazon M with gold game 74166
 
Arimaazon M with silver game 74171 (This is the fastest annihilation game I have ever done or even seen)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 14th, 2008, 11:10pm
Loc2005P2 M with gold game 74179
 
Loc2005P2 M with silver game 74180 (I never thought that I could be ashamed of a camel handicap, but this one I am, please beat it!)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 15th, 2008, 3:04pm
ArimaaScoreP1 EMHHDDCRRRRR (IOW with only CRRR) with silver game 74194 and also game 74208 (Actually I've done it five times by now, the last two in a row).

At last!!!

99of9 you may be ruler of shallowblue but I am the undisputed king of ArimaaScore. :P

;)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by aaaa on Apr 15th, 2008, 8:09pm

on 04/12/08 at 01:09:05, 99of9 wrote:
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!).

I wouldn't go so far, as it would depend on the behavior of the bot. The big question is whether it would be in the spirit of the strictness I envisaged, if a bot capturing one of the pieces of the player during the handicapping stage would count as a legitimate handicap piece or not if up to that moment, the piece was at least "slated" for being killed off with no assumption whatsoever of bot behavior.

As for your game 73995, I'm afraid that the big problem here is not what happened with the dog, but that you could have killed two rabbits on move 5b. That means that under my strict rules, three rabbits would have to be scrapped from the handicap.

Again, anyone is free to follow whatever rule set they deem worthy, so don't attack me just for making incontestable, mathematical observations here. Don't read in those that I'm belittling people's achievements by implication.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 16th, 2008, 3:07am
Gnobot2005P1 EHHDDC with gold game 74263
 
Gnobot2005P1 EHHDDC with silver game 74267

Gnobby ate all my candy... and died of indigestion.  ;)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by 99of9 on Apr 16th, 2008, 5:52am
Arimaalon EMHHDDC with gold in game 74273
Arimaalon EMHHDDC with silver in game 74271
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 16th, 2008, 7:35am
Gnobot2005P1 EMHHDDC with gold game 74282.
Gnobot2005P1 EMHHDDCR with silver game 74285.
(I am a quick study  ;))
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by 99of9 on Apr 16th, 2008, 8:51am
Aamira2006P1 EMH with silver in game 74291
Gnobot2005P1 EMHHDDCRR with gold in game 74289 (up to the community whether you want to list this given that I am Gnobby's creator... but if you don't, then anybody can copy this game verbatim anyway...)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by aaaa on Apr 16th, 2008, 10:12am

on 04/16/08 at 08:51:58, 99of9 wrote:
Aamira2006P1 EMH with silver in game 74291
Gnobot2005P1 EMHHDDCRR with gold in game 74289 (up to the community whether you want to list this given that I am Gnobby's creator... but if you don't, then anybody can copy this game verbatim anyway...)


With Arimaa having such a high branching factor it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility of programming a backdoor in one's bot or for that matter encode hidden messages in a game record that still demonstrates plausible play.
While looking for existing examples of game steganography I found this link (http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/crypto/).
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by mistre on Apr 16th, 2008, 10:42am
Arimabuff and 99of9:

We need to make a decision about updating the botbashing page for handicaps, especially if you continue at this blistering pace...

Arimabuff is updating his own, but as far as I know, 99of9 is not.  I don't want to be put in the position where I am always updating just 99of9 records and my own.

So either we each need to each update it ourselves, or we pick one person to do all of the updating. I am fine either way, we just need to make a consensus decision to do it one way or the other.

If we update the page directly, there will be no need to list your games here, unless you really want to. If one person updates, then we would need to continue to list the games (I prefer in a separate thread from the discussion).

Let me know your decisions.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 16th, 2008, 11:02am

on 04/16/08 at 10:42:52, mistre wrote:
Arimabuff and 99of9:

We need to make a decision about updating the botbashing page for handicaps, especially if you continue at this blistering pace...

Arimabuff is updating his own, but as far as I know, 99of9 is not.  I don't want to be put in the position where I am always updating just 99of9 records and my own.

So either we each need to each update it ourselves, or we pick one person to do all of the updating. I am fine either way, we just need to make a consensus decision to do it one way or the other.

If we update the page directly, there will be no need to list your games here, unless you really want to. If one person updates, then we would need to continue to list the games (I prefer in a separate thread from the discussion).

Let me know your decisions.

Personally, I am happy updating my own records and occasionally 99's (yes I did) but I have a feeling that 99  likes it this way. I mean if he were the only one to post here people would think that he keeps beating his own records wouldn't they? ;)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by mistre on Apr 16th, 2008, 1:35pm
I have attempted an official rule writing for the handicap games - see the botbashing page.  I think I encapsulated in the rules in only 2 bullets, but please check my wording and decide if it looks correct or if I missed anything.

I don't believe there are currently any move restrictions (number of steps each turn or extra steps), or speed restrictions (how fast you sacrifice your pieces).


Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 16th, 2008, 1:37pm

on 04/16/08 at 08:51:58, 99of9 wrote:
...Gnobot2005P1 EMHHDDCRR with gold in game 74289 (up to the community whether you want to list this given that I am Gnobby's creator... but if you don't, then anybody can copy this game verbatim anyway...)

Sorry 99 I may have done a little hyperbole here. I apologize. You're welcome to beat your own bot senseless anytime.

By the way, problem solved I just beat Gnobot2005P1

EMHHDDCRRR with gold in game 74299

And

EMHHDDCRRR with silver in game 74307



I am quite sure, that it won't be the last of it.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 16th, 2008, 1:53pm

on 04/16/08 at 13:35:23, mistre wrote:
I have attempted an official rule writing for the handicap games - see the botbashing page.  I think I encapsulated in the rules in only 2 bullets, but please check my wording and decide if it looks correct or if I missed anything.

I don't believe there are currently any move restrictions (number of steps each turn or extra steps), or speed restrictions (how fast you sacrifice your pieces).

Two details:

First, pulling and pushing are the only types of active play. I don't know what "advancing" means in that context. It may get people confused to read that word. Besides, you already said that sacrificed pieces only move toward the trap.

Second, you forgot to mention that ONLY the pieces to be sacrificed can move during the sacrificing period and that if a piece NOT to be sacrificed moves even ONE step during that period then it ends it right there.

Other than that, it's perfect.
:)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by mistre on Apr 16th, 2008, 2:56pm

on 04/16/08 at 13:53:11, Arimabuff wrote:
Two details:

First, pulling and pushing are the only types of active play. I don't know what "advancing" means in that context. It may get people confused to read that word. Besides, you already said that sacrificed pieces only move toward the trap.

Second, you forgot to mention that ONLY the pieces to be sacrificed can move during the sacrificing period and that if a piece NOT to be sacrificed moves even ONE step during that period then it ends it right there.

Other than that, it's perfect.
:)


Thanks - I'll fix it now.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 16th, 2008, 3:56pm

on 04/16/08 at 13:35:23, mistre wrote:
I have attempted an official rule writing for the handicap games - see the botbashing page.

Here's an alternative way to say (I think) the same thing.  It's hard to be both precise and consice, though, so maybe I made it worse. :-[

The sacrificing period ends when
* the player steps any piece to a square that is not closer to the nearest trap
* the player initiates a push or pull
* the bot initiates a push or pull
The handicap consists of all the player's pieces that were dead before the first step taken by any of his pieces still living when the sacrificing period ends

The last sentence could also be restated, "A piece is excluded from the handicap if it died after a step by any piece that didn't die within the sacrificing period."  Was this the intent of your rules?

These rules seem rather permissive to me, but I can understand the attraction of having some latitude within the sacrificing period.  Perhaps if the rules were too strict, there would not be enough scope for skill to express itself.  I still think the ultimate arbiter of whether this will be a good rule is whether the same handicap can be achieved by leaving the pieces out of the setup; maybe it will work out just about the same.  In the mean time, it's a good rule simply if all the active bot-bashers can agree to live by it!
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 16th, 2008, 4:43pm

on 04/16/08 at 15:56:09, Fritzlein wrote:
Here's an alternative way to say (I think) the same thing.  It's hard to be both precise and consice, though, so maybe I made it worse. :-[

The sacrificing period ends when
* the player steps any piece to a square that is not closer to the nearest trap
* the player initiates a push or pull
* the bot initiates a push or pull
The handicap consists of all the player's pieces that were dead before the first step taken by any of his pieces still living when the sacrificing period ends

The last sentence could also be restated, "A piece is excluded from the handicap if it died after a step by any piece that didn't die within the sacrificing period."  Was this the intent of your rules?

These rules seem rather permissive to me, but I can understand the attraction of having some latitude within the sacrificing period.  Perhaps if the rules were too strict, there would not be enough scope for skill to express itself.  I still think the ultimate arbiter of whether this will be a good rule is whether the same handicap can be achieved by leaving the pieces out of the setup; maybe it will work out just about the same.  In the mean time, it's a good rule simply if all the active bot-bashers can agree to live by it!

No offence Karl but your way of stating things makes you sound like a judge pronouncing the sentence of a guy who would be culpable of several counts of theft and two of embezzlements associated with polygamy.  ;)

I think that the latest version of mistre has the advantage of being more accessible to the layman (you know what I mean, the hoi polloi, the great unwashed, the man on the street etc...) and of sounding more like... how shall I put it... FUN!

I think that mistre’s version both speaks to the mind of plain old me and describes all the games that have been admitted in the grid so far and don’t leave room for misunderstanding. Unless you can find an example of the latter, I believe that there is no cause for gilding the lily, at least that's how I see it.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 16th, 2008, 4:51pm

on 04/16/08 at 15:56:09, Fritzlein wrote:
...In the mean time, it's a good rule simply if all the active bot-bashers can agree to live by it!

It has been shown that you can do a great deal of sacrificing (up to leaving only CRR as your remaining pieces) while following these rules. So all the bot-bashers HAVE, if some in the future try not to then that will only mean that they are of the troublemaker kind and not people who play for fun. AT least that's how I see it.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by 99of9 on Apr 16th, 2008, 5:36pm
Those rules look well stated to me. (both by mistre and Fritzlein, thanks)

One technicality would be when the first non-handicap piece to move moves away from defending a piece on a trap.  Does the piece on the trap count as a handicap?

Also it is worth defining how to work out what handicap is larger than what other handicap.  I haven't heard suggestions other than mine (majority of current published material evals) yet, so maybe we need more time to think about this.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 16th, 2008, 5:44pm

on 04/16/08 at 17:36:00, 99of9 wrote:
...One technicality would be when the first non-handicap piece to move moves away from defending a piece on a trap.  Does the piece on the trap count as a handicap?...

Moving away from a trap is a violation of the rule that says that all the pieces during the sacrificing period move TOWARD the trap and not away from it. So technically the piece ON the trap dies of the consequence of the deal breaker. It can't count.



Quote:
Also it is worth defining how to work out what handicap is larger than what other handicap.  I haven't heard suggestions other than mine (majority of current published material evals) yet, so maybe we need more time to think about this.

I can live with your rule. ( Or maybe my judgment is tainted by the fact that I benefited from it.  ;))
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by mistre on Apr 16th, 2008, 7:51pm

on 04/16/08 at 17:36:00, 99of9 wrote:
Also it is worth defining how to work out what handicap is larger than what other handicap.  I haven't heard suggestions other than mine (majority of current published material evals) yet, so maybe we need more time to think about this.


I agree we should go with the majority of the current material evals.  I am working on a spreadsheet that will list all major handicaps and in what order they are based on the 2/3 majority.  I will post it here when I am done.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 17th, 2008, 6:01am

on 04/16/08 at 05:52:06, 99of9 wrote:
Arimaalon EMHHDDC with gold in game 74273

Arimaalon EMHHDDCRRR with gold in game 74344
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 17th, 2008, 10:10am
Arimaalon EMHHDDCRRRR with silver in game  74379

:P


;)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 18th, 2008, 10:23am
GnoBot2005P1 EMHHDDCRRRRRR with silver in game  74454

IOW I just beat that bot with only CRR !!!

GnoBot2005P1 EMHHDDCRRRRRRR with silver in game  74456

Make that with only CR!!

The best handicap in Arimaa's history!
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Fritzlein on Apr 18th, 2008, 2:05pm
Congratulations, Arimabuff.  Winning with only CR is amazing.
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 18th, 2008, 2:34pm

on 04/18/08 at 14:05:13, Fritzlein wrote:
Congratulations, Arimabuff.  Winning with only CR is amazing.

Thanks!  :)
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by arimaa_master on Apr 19th, 2008, 2:24pm
M handicap - bot_Clueless2006P1 - with silver - game 74536
MH handicap - bot_Clueless2006P1 - with gold - game 74538
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by mistre on Apr 19th, 2008, 3:37pm
After all of this talk of CR vs RRR remaining on the Gnobot Silver handicap, why is the Gold handicap still EMHHDDCRRRR?

Is it that much harder with Gold?
Title: Re: Bot Bashing Records Discussion
Post by Arimabuff on Apr 19th, 2008, 3:57pm

on 04/19/08 at 15:37:41, mistre wrote:
After all of this talk of CR vs RRR remaining on the Gnobot Silver handicap, why is the Gold handicap still EMHHDDCRRRR?

Is it that much harder with Gold?

What makes it almost impossible is that no matter what you do the elephant starts pushing and pulling at CRRRR and there's nothing keeping it from doing so... apparently. Once the elephant intervenes the handicap, part is over. On the other hand the gold elephant keeps its distance long enough for allowing us to complete the handicap sequence.

So it is not as much a matter of being harder as it is of being without a solution.


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