Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Sep 22nd, 2017, 3:36pm

Home Home Help Help Search Search Members Members Login Login Register Register
Arimaa Forum « (no) absolute score values for pieces? »


   Arimaa Forum
   Arimaa
   Bot Development
(Moderator: supersamu)
   (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: (no) absolute score values for pieces?  (Read 22161 times)
rbarreira
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #1621

   


Gender: male
Posts: 605
Re: (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Reply #90 on: Jul 28th, 2010, 2:33pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

It seems logical to me that the side with the advantage always benefits from trading equal material.
 
Isn't this the whole idea behind FAME?
IP Logged
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #706

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 5928
Re: (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Reply #91 on: Jul 28th, 2010, 3:10pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 28th, 2010, 2:33pm, rbarreira wrote:
It seems logical to me that the side with the advantage always benefits from trading equal material.
 
Isn't this the whole idea behind FAME?

I wouldn't say it is the whole idea.  Smiley  A strong part of my motivation to get away from fixed values for the pieces was that a camel goes down in value on an emptier board, while rabbits go up in value.  It was clear even then that Bomb vastly overvalued its camel in an endgame, to its own detriment.
 
A subtle point is that the side with the advantage might have fewer pieces, e.g. M for HR.  The side with the camel has an advantage, but equal trades can turn the advantage into a disadvantage in a big hurry.
 
on Jul 28th, 2010, 2:13pm, jdb wrote:
I have been doing some tests with the various material evaluators using Janzert's roundrobin program. The games are 10 sec per move, so a game takes around 10 minutes.  I'll post the results when there are enough games.

Fantastic.  I am very curious to see your results.  I wonder whether the results will be statistically significant, or the genuine differences in evaluation will be drowned in noise.
 
Quote:
Assume there is a H for d trade. Who benefits from equal trades? The side with the extra H benefits from equal trades of camels or horses. This gets them closer to having the strongest piece. What about equal trades of dogs, cats or rabbits?

I personally am indifferent to trade of weaker pieces.  My reasoning is that emptying the board destabilizes the position, which benefits the player who is behind in material.  On the other hand, the fewer pieces are on the board, the more likely it is for the mismatch to be relevant.  I let the two opposing considerations cancel out in my mind, although I am sure sometimes one is more important than the other.  This is an area where I wouldn't feel confident to tell a material evaluator that it was wrong whichever way it was leaning.
 
Quote:
Assume one side has an extra rabbit. Who benefits from equals trades? Trading rabbits eventually leads to 2 rabbits vs 1 rabbit. The extra rabbit becomes a huge advantage. What about trading cats, dogs, horses or camels? Eventually this leads to E vs e with an extra rabbit. This also looks like a big advantage for the extra rabbit.

Yes, every equal trade should benefit a player with an extra rabbit.  Use with caution, though, because an extra rabbit is a small advantage on a full board and a still small (albeit greater) advantage when it gets down to E8R vs. e7r.  Against a computer opponent I might not want to trade down because I expect the endgame to be its forte despite my material advantage.
 
Quote:
Assume one side has an extra camel. Who benefits from equal trades? Fame/Harlog puts the initial advantage at 5.64/6.48. With everything but the rabbits traded off, leaving EM8R vs E8R, Fame/Harlog is 6.38/3.80. Finally EMR vs er, FAME/Harlog is 8.46/5.31. This looks like an area for improvement. What is correct in this case?

HarLog performs better than FAME on this one, although I don't entirely trust HarLog either because of how it treats rabbits.  When I have an extra camel, I feel that any equal trade weakens my position, even if only slightly.  My objective when I am up a camel is always to get a better-than-equal trade or (ideally) to get something for nothing.  I feel sufficiently strongly about this that I think it would make a good litmus test of the kind you are seeking, i.e. any material evaluator that likes any equal trade (except elephants Cheesy) when up a camel is just wrong and should be replaced by some modified form of itself.
 
But the effect is not strong.  If I am up a camel on a full board, trading dog for dog only hurts me a little, whereas winning a rabbit outright helps me significantly, so I would be happy to win DR for D.
« Last Edit: Jul 28th, 2010, 3:20pm by Fritzlein » IP Logged

jdb
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #214

   


Gender: male
Posts: 682
Re: (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Reply #92 on: Jul 28th, 2010, 4:07pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 28th, 2010, 3:10pm, Fritzlein wrote:

A subtle point is that the side with the advantage might have fewer pieces, e.g. M for HR.  The side with the camel has an advantage, but equal trades can turn the advantage into a disadvantage in a big hurry.

 
I agree the number of pieces is very important, both relative and absolute.  
 
Quote:

Fantastic.  I am very curious to see your results.  I wonder whether the results will be statistically significant, or the genuine differences in evaluation will be drowned in noise.

 
Bayeselo is wonderful.
 
Quote:

I personally am indifferent to trade of weaker pieces.  My reasoning is that emptying the board destabilizes the position, which benefits the player who is behind in material.  On the other hand, the fewer pieces are on the board, the more likely it is for the mismatch to be relevant.  I let the two opposing considerations cancel out in my mind, although I am sure sometimes one is more important than the other.  This is an area where I wouldn't feel confident to tell a material evaluator that it was wrong whichever way it was leaning.
 
Yes, every equal trade should benefit a player with an extra rabbit.  Use with caution, though, because an extra rabbit is a small advantage on a full board and a still small (albeit greater) advantage when it gets down to E8R vs. e7r.  Against a computer opponent I might not want to trade down because I expect the endgame to be its forte despite my material advantage.

 
I'll run some test games with E8R vs e7r and see what happens.
 
Quote:

HarLog performs better than FAME on this one, although I don't entirely trust HarLog either because of how it treats rabbits.  When I have an extra camel, I feel that any equal trade weakens my position, even if only slightly.  My objective when I am up a camel is always to get a better-than-equal trade or (ideally) to get something for nothing.  I feel sufficiently strongly about this that I think it would make a good litmus test of the kind you are seeking, i.e. any material evaluator that likes any equal trade (except elephants Cheesy) when up a camel is just wrong and should be replaced by some modified form of itself.
 
But the effect is not strong.  If I am up a camel on a full board, trading dog for dog only hurts me a little, whereas winning a rabbit outright helps me significantly, so I would be happy to win DR for D.

 
I'll have to think about this. If everything is traded off it comes down to EMR vs er which is a big advantage. But as you said, there is a period during the trades where the position can be destabilized. Maybe it is necessary to define when the material evaluator can be applied. That is, its only valid in a stable position without alot of threats.
IP Logged
jdb
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #214

   


Gender: male
Posts: 682
Re: (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Reply #93 on: Jul 29th, 2010, 4:24pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Here are the results of some testing between FAME,HarLog, and Constant. Time control was 10sec per move.  
 
 

Rank Name    .     .     Elo    +    - games score oppo. draws  
   1 Clueless_FAME  .   2221   40   39   121   54%  2189    0%  
   2 Clueless_HarLog    2210   40   39   120   52%  2195    0%  
   3 Clueless_Constant  2169   39   40   121   45%  2215    0%  
IP Logged
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #706

   
Email

Gender: male
Posts: 5928
Re: (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Reply #94 on: Jul 29th, 2010, 7:07pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Nice, thanks for sharing.  Is the reported +/- two standard deviations?  It appears that FAME and HarLog are statistically significantly better than constant piece values, but statistically indistinguishable from each other.
 
Did you tell me once that other positional factor in Clueless are tuned to work with FAME?   If so, would that put HarLog at a relative disadvantage?
IP Logged

jdb
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #214

   


Gender: male
Posts: 682
Re: (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Reply #95 on: Jul 29th, 2010, 7:48pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

The table was generated by bayeselo. I don't know what the +/- means.
 
The value of an initial rabbit is normalized for all material evaluators in clueless' eval. I dont think it would matter to HarLog.
 
IP Logged
Janzert
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #247

   


Gender: male
Posts: 1014
Re: (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Reply #96 on: Jul 29th, 2010, 8:17pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

The +/- columns are confidence interval. I'm pretty positive 95% CI although I can't find anything explicitly stating it right now. I did find this post by Remi Coloumn on talkchess describing the four methods bayeselo has available for calculating the CI.
 
Quote:
Bayeselo offer 4 different algorithms for computing confidence intervals. This is the list of options, from the least accurate and fastest, to the most accurate and slowest:
 
    * Default: assume opponents ratings are their true ratings, and Gaussian distribution
    * "exactdist": assume opponents ratings are their true ratings, but does not assume Gaussian distribution. This will produce asymmetric intervals, especially for very high or very low winning rates. Cost is linear in the number of players.
    * "covariance": assume Gaussian distribution, but not that the rating of opponents are true. This may be very costly if you have thousands of players, but it is more accurate than the default. The cost is cubic in the number of players (it is a matrix inversion)
    * "jointdist": computes a numerical estimation of the whole distribution. It is the most accurate, but the cost is exponential in the number of players. May work for 3-4 players. You should reduce the resolution of the discretization for more players.

 
The output from the los (likelyhood-of-superiority) command would also be interesting to see.
 
Janzert
IP Logged
rbarreira
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #1621

   


Gender: male
Posts: 605
Re: (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Reply #97 on: Jul 30th, 2010, 3:17am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 29th, 2010, 7:07pm, Fritzlein wrote:
Nice, thanks for sharing.  Is the reported +/- two standard deviations?  It appears that FAME and HarLog are statistically significantly better than constant piece values, but statistically indistinguishable from each other.

 
Actually if you take the two extremes, static values may be as high as 2208 while FAME may be as low as 2182. Or am I misunderstanding something?
 
Unfortunately it is necessary to test a very high number of games to test most changes, at least search-related ones... I have more or less accepted that I won't be able to conclusively test many of the changes I do to my bot.
 
Not everyone has a big cluster like Dr. Robert Hyatt, and CPU time at Amazon EC2 isn't cheap enough for me.
« Last Edit: Jul 30th, 2010, 3:18am by rbarreira » IP Logged
jdb
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #214

   


Gender: male
Posts: 682
Re: (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Reply #98 on: Jul 30th, 2010, 5:52am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

The games are 10sec per move. All pieces are setup on the first two ranks.
 

Rank Name   .    .   Elo    +    - games score oppo. draws  
   1 Clueless_EC6R  2292   34   33   203   65%  2156    0%  
   2 Clueless_E8R   2262   27   26   303   65%  2130    0%  
   3 Clueless_E7R   2046   28   29   300   25%  2272    0%  
 
 
Output of LOS:
   .     .    .Cl Cl Cl
Clueless_EC6R     86 100
Clueless_E8R   13    100
Clueless_E7R    0  0    
 
Output of detail:    
   1 Clueless_EC6R  2292 203.0 (131.0 :  72.0)
                         103.0 ( 52.0 :  51.0) Clueless_E8R   2262
                         100.0 ( 79.0 :  21.0) Clueless_E7R   2046
   2 Clueless_E8R   2262 303.0 (196.0 : 107.0)
                         103.0 ( 51.0 :  52.0) Clueless_EC6R  2292
                         200.0 (145.0 :  55.0) Clueless_E7R   2046
   3 Clueless_E7R   2046 300.0 ( 76.0 : 224.0)
                         100.0 ( 21.0 :  79.0) Clueless_EC6R  2292
                         200.0 ( 55.0 : 145.0) Clueless_E8R   2262

 
Now running tournament with:
 
E8R,EC6R,E7R,EC5R,ECC4R,ECC3R
 
Code:

Rank Name    .     .  Elo    +    - games score oppo. draws  
   1 Clueless_ECC4R  2362   52   48   143   71%  2168    0%  
   2 Clueless_EC6R   2307   32   31   348   65%  2164    0%  
   3 Clueless_E8R    2263   28   27   448   63%  2149    0%  
   4 Clueless_EC5R   2114   47   49   143   38%  2217    0%  
   5 Clueless_ECC3R  2113   47   48   143   38%  2217    0%  
   6 Clueless_E7R    2041   29   30   445   26%  2263    0%  
      Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl
Clueless_ECC4R     94 99 99 99100
Clueless_EC6R    5    97 99 99100
Clueless_E8R     0  2    99 99100
Clueless_EC5R    0  0  0    51 98
Clueless_ECC3R   0  0  0 48    98
Clueless_E7R     0  0  0  1  1    
   1 Clueless_ECC4R  2362 143.0 (102.0 :  41.0)
       29.0 ( 15.0 :  14.0) Clueless_EC6R   2307
       29.0 ( 20.0 :   9.0) Clueless_E8R    2263
       28.0 ( 20.0 :   8.0) Clueless_EC5R   2114
       28.0 ( 25.0 :   3.0) Clueless_ECC3R  2113
       29.0 ( 22.0 :   7.0) Clueless_E7R    2041
   2 Clueless_EC6R   2307 348.0 (227.0 : 121.0)
       29.0 ( 14.0 :  15.0) Clueless_ECC4R  2362
      132.0 ( 69.0 :  63.0) Clueless_E8R    2263
       29.0 ( 24.0 :   5.0) Clueless_EC5R   2114
       29.0 ( 16.0 :  13.0) Clueless_ECC3R  2113
      129.0 (104.0 :  25.0) Clueless_E7R    2041
   3 Clueless_E8R    2263 448.0 (280.0 : 168.0)
       29.0 (  9.0 :  20.0) Clueless_ECC4R  2362
      132.0 ( 63.0 :  69.0) Clueless_EC6R   2307
       29.0 ( 18.0 :  11.0) Clueless_EC5R   2114
       29.0 ( 21.0 :   8.0) Clueless_ECC3R  2113
      229.0 (169.0 :  60.0) Clueless_E7R    2041
   4 Clueless_EC5R   2114 143.0 ( 55.0 :  88.0)
       28.0 (  8.0 :  20.0) Clueless_ECC4R  2362
       29.0 (  5.0 :  24.0) Clueless_EC6R   2307
       29.0 ( 11.0 :  18.0) Clueless_E8R    2263
       28.0 ( 16.0 :  12.0) Clueless_ECC3R  2113
       29.0 ( 15.0 :  14.0) Clueless_E7R    2041
   5 Clueless_ECC3R  2113 143.0 ( 55.0 :  88.0)
       28.0 (  3.0 :  25.0) Clueless_ECC4R  2362
       29.0 ( 13.0 :  16.0) Clueless_EC6R   2307
       29.0 (  8.0 :  21.0) Clueless_E8R    2263
       28.0 ( 12.0 :  16.0) Clueless_EC5R   2114
       29.0 ( 19.0 :  10.0) Clueless_E7R    2041
   6 Clueless_E7R    2041 445.0 (116.0 : 329.0)
       29.0 (  7.0 :  22.0) Clueless_ECC4R  2362
      129.0 ( 25.0 : 104.0) Clueless_EC6R   2307
      229.0 ( 60.0 : 169.0) Clueless_E8R    2263
       29.0 ( 14.0 :  15.0) Clueless_EC5R   2114
       29.0 ( 10.0 :  19.0) Clueless_ECC3R  2113
 
« Last Edit: Jul 31st, 2010, 9:47am by jdb » IP Logged
Hippo
Forum Guru
*****




Arimaa player #4450

   


Gender: male
Posts: 875
Re: (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Reply #99 on: Jul 31st, 2010, 1:49pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 29th, 2010, 4:24pm, jdb wrote:
Here are the results of some testing between FAME,HarLog, and Constant. Time control was 10sec per move.  
 
 

Rank Name    .     .     Elo    +    - games score oppo. draws  
   1 Clueless_FAME  .   2221   40   39   121   54%  2189    0%  
   2 Clueless_HarLog    2210   40   39   120   52%  2195    0%  
   3 Clueless_Constant  2169   39   40   121   45%  2215    0%  

 
It would be interesting to test HA(FA)ME as well ...
IP Logged

jdb
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #214

   


Gender: male
Posts: 682
Re: (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Reply #100 on: Jul 31st, 2010, 5:59pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Feb 17th, 2010, 2:09am, Hippo wrote:

 
So far I have:
1) the FAME rabbit evaluation  
2) let SGNi,j is result of comparison of i-th strongest gold piece with j-th strongest silver piece.
I have matrix of coefficients Ci,j. Sum of coordinate-wise multiplication of these two matrices is second summand.
3) last summand contains 1 for each presented stone type and 10000 for presented rabbit (added for gold and subtracted for silver).
 
C is symmetric: first try
(250  27  10   3   1   0   0   0)
( 27  90  19   7   2   0   0   0)
( 10  19  60  13   6   1   0   0)
(  3   7  13  40   9   2   0   0)
(  1   2   6    9   30  3   1   0)
(  0   0   1   2   3  10   3   1)
(  0   0   0   0   1   3  10   3)
(  0   0   0   0   0   1    3   7)
 
BTW: Having C diagonal with diagonal  
256      85      57      38      25      17      11      7 gives original FAME (first 2 summands). May be I had to start much nearer to this matrix.

 
 
I can test this too but I am unsure how to handle part 3.
IP Logged
Hippo
Forum Guru
*****




Arimaa player #4450

   


Gender: male
Posts: 875
Re: (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Reply #101 on: Aug 1st, 2010, 12:27pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 31st, 2010, 5:59pm, jdb wrote:

 
 
I can test this too but I am unsure how to handle part 3.

 
Last summand is not important (the high value of last rabbit is covered by elimination rule tests, and the at most 5 points are small enough to be notable) ... Player gains 1 point if he has a cat, 1 point if he has a dog, 1 point if he has a horse, 1 point if he has a camel and 1 point if he has an elephant.
In that case EDC8R/em8r is 1 point for gold better to EHH8R/em8r.
 
I was trying to make a puzzle where there the advantage of stone diversity is important but I don't think it would ever be important in real arimaa game so you can ignore the third summand Smiley
 
Here is code of evaluation I was trying (but not implementing bot yet).
 
Code:

        static int[] f_powers(int[] pieces)
        {
            int[] powers = new int[8]; int k = 0;
            for (int i = pieces.Length; i > 0; i--)
                for (int j = 0; j < pieces[i - 1] && k < 8; j++)
                    powers[k++] = i;
            for (; k < 8; k++) powers[k] = 0;
            return powers;
        }
 
        static long f_HAME0eval(int g, int s)
        {
            int[] gPieces = f_pieces(g), sPieces = f_pieces(s);
            int[] gPowers = f_powers(gPieces), sPowers = f_powers(sPieces);
            int[,] weights = new int[8, 8]  
            {{2130, 210,  40,   0,   0,   0,  0,  0},
             { 210, 540, 130,  20,   0,   0,  0,  0},
             {  40, 130, 400,  70,  10,   0,  0,  0},
             {   0,  20,  70, 270,  40,  10,  0,  0},
             {   0,   0,  10,  40, 180,  30,  0,  0},
             {   0,   0,   0,  10,  30, 120, 20,  0},
             {   0,   0,   0,   0,   0,  20, 70, 10},
             {   0,   0,   0,   0,   0,   0, 10, 60}};
            int gLastNonRabbit = 0, sLastNonRabbit = 0, maxLastNonRabbit = 0;
            long score = 0;
            for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++)
            {
                if (gPowers[i] > 1) maxLastNonRabbit = gLastNonRabbit = i + 1;
                if (sPowers[i] > 1) maxLastNonRabbit = sLastNonRabbit = i + 1;
                if (i == maxLastNonRabbit) break;
            }
            for (int i = 0; i < maxLastNonRabbit; i++)
                for (int j = 0; j < maxLastNonRabbit; j++)
                {
                    if (gPowers[i] > sPowers[j]) score += weights[i, j];
                    if (gPowers[i] < sPowers[j]) score -= weights[i, j];
                }
            int gNrPieces = gPieces[0] + gLastNonRabbit,
            sNrPieces = sPieces[0] + sLastNonRabbit;
            int gResist = gNrPieces + gPieces[0];
            int sResist = sNrPieces + sPieces[0];
            if ((gResist > 0) && (sResist > 0))
                if (gNrPieces > sNrPieces)
                    score += (gNrPieces - sNrPieces) * 1200 / sResist;
                else
                    score -= (sNrPieces - gNrPieces) * 1200 / gResist;
            for (int i = 1; i < 6; i++)
            {
                if (gPieces[i] > 0) score++;
                if (sPieces[i] > 0) score--;
            }
            if (gPieces[0] > 0) score += 10000-840/gPieces[0];
            if (sPieces[0] > 0) score -= 10000-840/sPieces[0];
            // 840,480,280,210,168,140,120,105
            return score;
        }

 
But as I read it now, resist should be probably 2*nrpieces-pieces[0]. The code was not optimised for speed. I have used it to precompute the evaluation table and access the table rather than recomputing so this neednot be the issue.
« Last Edit: Aug 1st, 2010, 12:57pm by Hippo » IP Logged

rbarreira
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #1621

   


Gender: male
Posts: 605
Re: (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Reply #102 on: Aug 1st, 2010, 3:34pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

jdb, one thing that I have noticed while running tests with roundrobin:
 
The default time limit for a whole game is 10 minutes. If you see games ending due to reason "s" it's because this time was exceeded.
 
I changed it to 0 which should be unlimited, since I don't want results to get distorted due to this time limit. Or maybe I should use something bigger, in case there's an infinite loop or something.
 
No matter what, those results should be eliminated from the pgn if they are happening.
IP Logged
Janzert
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #247

   


Gender: male
Posts: 1014
Re: (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Reply #103 on: Aug 1st, 2010, 8:08pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

By default if it isn't specified in the timecontrol there shouldn't be any limit on the game length. There may very well be a bug there in the current version though.
 
Just FYI, generally for testing I've been using a move limit instead of a time limit. It seems a little easier than calculating a reasonable time limit for each time control I test at. To set a move limit just append 't' to the limit. So it would look something like 3s/15s/100/0/125t.
 
Janzert
IP Logged
jdb
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #214

   


Gender: male
Posts: 682
Re: (no) absolute score values for pieces?
« Reply #104 on: Aug 2nd, 2010, 3:39pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Latest bunch of games.
 
A couple observations.
 
1) A cat is worth almost exactly 2 rabbits, as long as both sides have 4 or more rabbits.
 
2) The first 4 rabbits captured are worth about the same. After that their value goes up quickly.
 
Code:

Rank Name    .    .   Elo    +    - games score oppo. draws  
   1 Clueless_ECC8R  3309   90   76   230   93%  2538    0%  
   2 Clueless_ECC7R  3219   76   69   230   88%  2545    0%  
   3 Clueless_ECC6R  3019   63   60   230   77%  2561    0%  
   4 Clueless_EC8R   2987   59   56   243   75%  2550    0%  
   5 Clueless_ECC5R  2848   58   57   230   64%  2574    0%  
   6 Clueless_EC7R   2815   54   54   241   61%  2569    0%  
   7 Clueless_ECC4R  2640   40   39   375   56%  2543    0%  
   8 Clueless_EC6R   2612   31   31   579   58%  2511    0%  
   9 Clueless_E8R    2551   27   27   702   54%  2501    0%  
  10 Clueless_ECC3R  2422   40   41   375   35%  2570    0%  
  11 Clueless_EC5R   2418   40   41   375   34%  2571    0%  
  12 Clueless_E7R    2337   28   29   836   52%  2188    0%  
  13 Clueless_EC4R   2267   53   51   368   78%  1756    0%  
  14 Clueless_E6R    2148   49   48   381   69%  1786    0%  
  15 Clueless_ECC2R  2113   49   48   366   69%  1763    0%  
  16 Clueless_E5R    1996   47   48   381   59%  1797    0%  
  17 Clueless_EC3R   1991   47   47   368   61%  1776    0%  
  18 Clueless_E4R    1730   49   50   381   42%  1817    0%  
  19 Clueless_EC2R   1653   51   53   368   39%  1801    0%  
  20 Clueless_ECC1R  1553   54   56   366   34%  1804    0%  
  21 Clueless_E3R    1494   56   58   381   29%  1834    0%  
  22 Clueless_E2R    1110   73   79   381   13%  1862    0%  
  23 Clueless_EC1R   1025   77   83   368   11%  1847    0%  
  24 Clueless_E1R     542  306 -269   381    1%  1904    0%  
IP Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »

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