Author |
Topic: 2008 Postal Tournament (Read 6293 times) |
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender: 
Posts: 1003
|
 |
Re: 2008 Postal Tournament
« Reply #30 on: May 5th, 2008, 10:05am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
You're certainly more of a mathematician than a programmer 
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
RonWeasley
Forum Guru
Harry's friend (Arimaa player #441)
Gender:
Posts: 882
|
|
Re: 2008 Postal Tournament
« Reply #31 on: May 14th, 2008, 8:34am » |
Quote Modify
|
With most games coming up on 20 moves, I'm really impressed with how well bot_OpFor is playing. I expected it to be non-competitive. Instead it's winning against some good players. Maybe the extra time makes a difference for it. Early congratulations to Janzert.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Janzert
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #247
Gender:
Posts: 1016
|
|
Re: 2008 Postal Tournament
« Reply #32 on: May 14th, 2008, 11:21am » |
Quote Modify
|
Thanks, although I've been quite surprised by how well it's doing also.
Something I would interested in hearing as people finish up the games with OpFor is what rating player does it feel like you're playing, i.e. if the opponent was unknown does it feel like you are playing an 1800 rated player or 1500 or what approximately? Similarly how "weird" does its play seem, does it feel basically like playing a similarly rated human, does it make an occasional weird move or does it just have a plain weird or maybe bot like play style? I'd be really interested in hearing peoples thoughts.
Janzert
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2008 Postal Tournament
« Reply #33 on: May 14th, 2008, 11:43am » |
Quote Modify
|
The game room ratings of OpFor's opponents in the Postal Mixer were
1601
1683
1725
1803
1890
1922
2090
2090
2109
2177
2177
2297
2297
2304
2304
2340
2491
We can calculate OpFor's performance rating based on the number of games it wins against this opposition:
Wins / Performance
1 1437
2 1592
3 1699
4 1787
5 1863
6 1933
7 1998
8 2060
Recall that Zombie had a performance rating of 1409 in the 2007 Postal Tournament (1-14) and Bomb had a performance rating of 1716 in the 2005 Postal Tournament (4-6). OpFor only needs to win four this year (4-13) to set a record postal performance for a bot.
Of course this could touch off another thread about rating inflation, but please recall that at the time the 2005 Postal tournament started, we didn't have Bomb-bashing down to a science, and the human participants weren't all veterans of the bot ladder, because the bot ladder didn't exist yet. There may be some human rating inflation, but that isn't the only thing going on. Blue22's rating now is about what mine was three years ago, and I'll wager he is as strong a player now as I was then, given how much all of us have learned in the mean time.
OpFor's style is IMHO more suited to postal play than Zombie's wildness and preference for small pieces. If OpFor outdoes Bomb as well it may be due to having a more strategic style, although Bomb's strategy is pretty good.
|
| « Last Edit: May 14th, 2008, 12:14pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2008 Postal Tournament
« Reply #34 on: May 14th, 2008, 12:04pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 14th, 2008, 11:21am, Janzert wrote:| Something I would interested in hearing as people finish up the games with OpFor is what rating player does it feel like you're playing |
|
In my completed game against OpFor, I felt much more like I was playing against an inexperienced human than against a bot. OpFor seemed to be playing with strategy by taking my attacking horse hostage and opposing my camel on the other wing with its own camel, but it was messing up tactically by letting me get its two cats offside and win them both for a rabbit. Decent strategy with bad tactics is very human-like. At the end OpFor made a colossal strategic mistake in underestimating my goal attack, and a tactical mistake in overlooking my goal in two. The latter mistake seems very un-computer like, but the former mistake could have been either a computer or an inexperienced human.
In my ongoing game against OpFor, I was surprised how strongly it resisted my EH attack. It stopped my camel on the opposite wing, and then activated its horse on move 7b, a strategically strong move that was an unwelcome surprise from a bot. I was about to post my compliments at OpFor's excellent strategy when it played a horrendous move 14b. Using only two steps is bizarre in itself (can't OpFor think of any active plan to improve its position with the other two steps?), but what's worse the two steps it did play invited an elephant smother that it didn't resist on the following moves either. OpFor just sat there and let the wave roll down. I didn't begin the game intending to win with a boring formula tested many times against Bomb, but ultimately OpFor begged me to do it. This was not a human loss: even an inexperienced human will see that I am up to something and try to stop it, or if he isn't paying attention to what I am doing, he will at least try to do something himself. Humans naturally operate by the maxim that it is better to have a bad plan than no plan at all.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mistre
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 553
|
|
Re: 2008 Postal Tournament
« Reply #35 on: May 14th, 2008, 2:54pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I don't expect to lose against Opfor, but it is putting up quite a fight in my postal game. After a very strange opening that resulted in its Elephant being stationed behind his own trap and a relatively easy cat capture, We have since traded a rabbit. While I am ahead materially, Opfor has got me into several hostage situations, holding my camel with his E on the side of the board, my H with his M near a trap, and my D with his H.
While Opfor will make a puzzling move from time to time, I think its relative strength rivals Bomb (I said this before). Also, it is less predictable than Bomb (probably because no one has played it enough to notice any patterns). So a rating of 1850-1900 seems about right.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2008 Postal Tournament
« Reply #36 on: May 14th, 2008, 4:07pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 14th, 2008, 2:54pm, mistre wrote:| I don't expect to lose against Opfor, but it is putting up quite a fight in my postal game. |
|
That's quite an interesting position you've got against OpFor, mistre. OpFor seems to have good practical chances despite your material advantage. OpFor has a couple more games that are unclear like yours, and also has a clear material advantage in four games, so at the moment I would project OpFor to win five or six. Thanks for pointing out OpFor's success so far, Ron. I wouldn't have noticed otherwise.
It is quite remarkable, because bots are supposed to get weaker relative to humans at postal speeds. Even if OpFor is 1900 strength at live games, it should only be 1750 or so against humans who have lots of time to plan and avoid blunders. Janzert, if I didn't know that you hadn't altered OpFor between the Computer Championship and the Postal Mixer, I would insist that you must have souped it up somehow.
Looking at the individual games in which OpFor is doing well, I can't quite explain it. It does seem that OpFor has a knack for complicating the position when it is in trouble, and (just as importantly) for doing well in messy positions. The general affinity of OpFor's elephant for the opposing camel stands it in good stead when pieces are flying all over the place. Yet, as you point out, mistre, it makes some moves that are quirky and others that are just bad. My impression from having looked at games besides my own is that OpFor is perhaps like an early naveed, capable of a brilliant game next to a pathetic one, and sometimes both at once.
I wonder if OpFor isn't benefiting from a bit of complacency on the part of humanity. I recall that in 2005, we were still afraid of Bomb, and many of us spent more time thinking on our games against Bomb than against each other so as not to be humbled by a loss. Also it was conventional wisdom to play especially defensively against bots to avoid their relative strength in open positions. Now we know that we can out-punch Bomb even in slugfests, so we don't take care. A postal loss to a bot would be even more of a blow than three years ago, but perhaps we think it too improbable to be worth worrying about until we get a wake up call over the board. How many people will want another postal game against OpFor now that they have had fair warning?
|
| « Last Edit: May 14th, 2008, 4:09pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mistre
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 553
|
|
Re: 2008 Postal Tournament
« Reply #37 on: May 14th, 2008, 4:25pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I had played Opfor twice when Janzert put it up in the gameroom and won both times, but neither game resulted in what I would call an easy win.
I have to admit that I was taking it for granted in Postal figuring it would be no problem and sure enough I captured a cat early on. But then it made some surprising moves that caught be completely off guard. I was not expecting it to give up the horse frame and threaten my horse in the opposite trap -I don't know of any other bot knowing when to give up a frame. Opfor seems to have a knack of playing well between its home traps - at least in this game.
What is even more crazy is that Opfor is tougher for me than Arimaa_Master who I beat for the very first time (and convincingly!) I got my revenge for my loss in our Championship match.
Blue22 is very close to beating me using a very effective swarm strategy despite giving up a camel hostage.
The rest of my games are still early and close.
|
| « Last Edit: May 14th, 2008, 5:17pm by mistre » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2008 Postal Tournament
« Reply #38 on: May 14th, 2008, 7:32pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 14th, 2008, 4:07pm, Fritzlein wrote:| A postal loss to a bot would be even more of a blow than three years ago, but perhaps we think it too improbable to be worth worrying about until we get a wake up call over the board. |
|
How ironic that I wrote this just before bot_sharp hit me with a move I totally didn't see on my last turn, and which forces me into an unfavorable camel trade. I am going to have to start taking that game seriously now that I've had my own personal wake up call...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
arimaa_master
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2010
Gender:
Posts: 358
|
|
Re: 2008 Postal Tournament
« Reply #39 on: May 15th, 2008, 2:44am » |
Quote Modify
|
I must admit that Opfor is constantly doing surprising moves (but also it is true that I don´t pay enough attention to my postal games either).
Opfor is playing very good arimaa in both my games (despite horse loss at move 12 in one of them). So far it found always ways to complicate the battle. But I am quite sure I am going to win both games .
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
arimaa_master
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2010
Gender:
Posts: 358
|
|
Re: 2008 Postal Tournament
« Reply #40 on: May 15th, 2008, 2:46am » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 14th, 2008, 4:25pm, mistre wrote:
What is even more crazy is that Opfor is tougher for me than Arimaa_Master who I beat for the very first time (and convincingly!) I got my revenge for my loss in our Championship match.
|
|
Yeah you smashed me there!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2008 Postal Tournament
« Reply #41 on: May 15th, 2008, 8:26pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I think OpFor is going to win the game with me. If so this will be the first postal I lose to a bot. It is playing surprisingly well. It manage to take my camel hostage and then really surprised me on 15w by advancing the camel (I would never expect that from Bomb). I thought this would be a chance for me to trade camels, but I overlooked that it could save it's camel and block me from saving mine. The game is starting to fall apart for me. OpFor feels like a human opponent to me; probably because I am not familiar with it's style and the surprising moves its been making. I would say it feels close to a 2000 rated player. Nice job Brian.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2008 Postal Tournament
« Reply #42 on: May 16th, 2008, 10:04am » |
Quote Modify
|
Openings this year:
| Elephant File | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | | d | 98.1% | 79.5% | 85.3% | 89.9% | | c | | 13.7% | 9.4% | 9.5% | | b | 1.9% | 6.3% | 5.3% | | | a | | 0.5% | | 0.6% | | Rabbits Forward | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | | none | 14.4% | 22.6% | 10.0% | 6.0% | | a | 2.5% | 15.3% | 4.1% | 0.6% | | c | 3.1% | | | | | ac | | | | 0.6% | | ah | 55.6% | 56.3% | 76.5% | 59.5% | | cf | 23.1% | | | 8.3% | | ag | | 0.5% | 1.2% | | | adh | | 2.6% | 4.1% | 10.1% | | abgh | 0.6% | | | | | acfh | 0.6% | | | 14.9% | | adeh | | 2.6% | 4.1% | | | Setup Balance | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | | Symmetrical | 56.9% | 50.5% | 54.1% | 50.0% | | Balanced | 22.5% | 30.0% | 34.1% | 42.3% | | Unbalanced | 20.6% | 19.5% | 11.8% | 7.7% | | Gold Move 2w | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | | E up 4 | 68.8% | 26.3% | 25.9% | 13.1% | | E up 3 over 1 | 11.3% | 11.6% | 1.2% | 3.6% | | E up 3; X up 1 | 6.3% | 41.1% | 40.0% | 45.2% | | E up 2; X,Y up 1 | 3.8% | 10.5% | 23.5% | 27.4% | | E, X, Y, Z up 1 | 3.8% | 3.2% | | 1.2% | | Other | 6.3% | 7.4% | 9.4% | 9.5% |
Last year I thought the 99of9 setup was gradually driving out all other options. I'm glad that hasn't happened yet. In fact, the "rabbits forward" statistic conceals some extra variation this year: many people, even when they put rabbits forward on a2 and h2, don't necessarily put pieces on d1 and e1. If I included all the variations of the back-row rabbits, I believe we would see that this year's setups are the least homogeneous ever.
|
| « Last Edit: May 16th, 2008, 2:15pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2008 Postal Tournament
« Reply #43 on: May 16th, 2008, 2:11pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Janzert, when I compiled the opening statistics, I noticed that Opfor was the most experimental of any player. What is your setup algorithm?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Janzert
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #247
Gender:
Posts: 1016
|
|
Re: 2008 Postal Tournament
« Reply #44 on: May 16th, 2008, 6:31pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Thanks for the comments everyone. I really appreciate and find them all very interesting. Sorry it took so long to respond (left town on a business trip right after posting and ended up without internet access at the hotel).
I'm encouraged to hear that it sounds like there are still big gains to be made in tactics, those should be the easy part to fix.
on May 14th, 2008, 4:07pm, Fritzlein wrote:| It is quite remarkable, because bots are supposed to get weaker relative to humans at postal speeds. Even if OpFor is 1900 strength at live games, it should only be 1750 or so against humans who have lots of time to plan and avoid blunders. [edit: moved intervening comments to seperately reply to below - Janzert]... I wonder if OpFor isn't benefiting from a bit of complacency on the part of humanity. I recall that in 2005, we were still afraid of Bomb, and many of us spent more time thinking on our games against Bomb than against each other so as not to be humbled by a loss. Also it was conventional wisdom to play especially defensively against bots to avoid their relative strength in open positions. Now we know that we can out-punch Bomb even in slugfests, so we don't take care. A postal loss to a bot would be even more of a blow than three years ago, but perhaps we think it too improbable to be worth worrying about until we get a wake up call over the board. |
|
Yeah, I agree. I think humans should, and actually do, "scale" better with more time than OpFor. But OpFor has been putting a minimum of 2 hours 'thought' into every move. I know by the move times that at least many of the humans certainly aren't. One thing of note related to scaling and that I realized earlier this week, the postal tournament speeds OpFor is running at are approximately 6 doublings away from championship/challenge speeds (think of moore's law and time to end of the challenge).
Quote:| Looking at the individual games in which OpFor is doing well, I can't quite explain it. It does seem that OpFor has a knack for complicating the position when it is in trouble, and (just as importantly) for doing well in messy positions. The general affinity of OpFor's elephant for the opposing camel stands it in good stead when pieces are flying all over the place. Yet, as you point out, mistre, it makes some moves that are quirky and others that are just bad. My impression from having looked at games besides my own is that OpFor is perhaps like an early naveed, capable of a brilliant game next to a pathetic one, and sometimes both at once. |
|
I wonder how much we as a community have come to equate bot like play with bomb's style. Especially after your further comment about sharp catching you by surprise as well. In fact initially in my post where I said "maybe bot like play style?" I had put "bomb like" then changed it after I realized "bot like" was what I really meant.
Quote:| How many people will want another postal game against OpFor now that they have had fair warning? |
|
I'm really hoping people will.
Janzert
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print