Author |
Topic: The fall of Bomb (Read 4470 times) |
|
UruramTururam
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2537
Gender: 
Posts: 319
|
 |
Re: The fall of Bomb
« Reply #15 on: May 5th, 2011, 3:23am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on May 5th, 2011, 2:26am, rbarreira wrote:
In the extreme case, even just allowing a bot to read the record of Arimaa games already allows the developer to communicate with the bot (although it would be a low-bandwidth channel). |
|
Yup, the developer can play a game so that the sequence of moves contains a command for the bot. A very low bandwidth channel indeed... Not wide enough to rewrite the procedures but sufficient for changing tables and/or (de-)activate specific subroutines.
|
|
 IP Logged |
Caffa et bucella per attactionem corporum venit ad stomachum meum.
BGG Arimaa badges - get your own one!
|
|
|
lightvector
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2543
Gender:
Posts: 197
|
|
Re: The fall of Bomb
« Reply #16 on: May 5th, 2011, 4:24pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 4th, 2011, 6:21pm, Swynndla wrote:
Also, bomb really did seem to be left behind that year (as OpFor wasn't parallel, so it wasn't just that), and even more so in 2010 & 2011. Is the general reason because of better position evaluation, or better pruning techniques? (or a combination of both?)
|
|
For Sharp, I am using some new pruning methods, but I think really the two major reasons for my bot is better evaluation and better quiescence search.
Getting the qsearch to expand all the necessary tactics properly, but without slowing down the search too much was really critical.
In 2010, I added a trap control function that I spent time tuning to make it, as much as possible, say the same thing that someone like Fritz  would hopefully say if you asked "who controls this trap by how much, and how much of an advantage is that worth?". Also, seeing how aggressive Arimaa play was becoming, I shifted the evaluation slightly towards to a framework of "attacking and advancing pieces is always good except when X, Y, or Z", and then tuning X Y and Z. This produces Sharp's current preference for an aggressive style.
It's still fragile though, and can certainly still lose to Bomb, especially if the evaluation gets sidetracked on something really stupid (sigh).
|
| « Last Edit: May 5th, 2011, 4:25pm by lightvector » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Swynndla
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1821
Posts: 235
|
|
Re: The fall of Bomb
« Reply #17 on: May 6th, 2011, 1:12am » |
Quote Modify
|
lightvector, I find what you say very interesting - thanks for sharing!
on May 5th, 2011, 4:24pm, lightvector wrote:In 2010, I added a trap control function that I spent time tuning to make it, as much as possible, say the same thing that someone like Fritz would hopefully say if you asked "who controls this trap by how much, and how much of an advantage is that worth?".
|
|
Did you make the bot work out the answers to those questions, or did you answer those questions yourself, or did you give a bunch of positions to someone like Fritz to answer? 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print