Author |
Topic: 2009 Arimaa Challenge (Read 7814 times) |
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender: 
Posts: 1003
|
 |
Re: 2009 Arimaa Challenge
« Reply #45 on: Mar 20th, 2009, 11:09am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Mar 20th, 2009, 8:33am, RonWeasley wrote:
So the ruling depends on what is technically feasible. Fix the server side if possible. Continue interrupted games if possible. Discard interrupted games otherwise. |
|
I think I can restore this game and continue it from the last position, but will have to coordinate the time aaaa.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: 2009 Arimaa Challenge
« Reply #46 on: Mar 20th, 2009, 12:14pm » |
Quote Modify
|
If there is no objection, I'd rather play the game afresh.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2009 Arimaa Challenge
« Reply #47 on: Mar 20th, 2009, 1:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 20th, 2009, 12:14pm, aaaa wrote:| If there is no objection, I'd rather play the game afresh. |
|
I don't think we should force someone to resume a game from such a situation, but if we're not going to force a resumption, then we probably shouldn't allow one either. It's the "two chances" theory that has already occurred in events this year. If the human player is allowed to choose to resume or not, then the technical problem disadvantages the bot. If we always disallow the game regardless of board position, then technical trouble is just a random event that is as likely to help the bot as to hurt the bot.
I my suggestion isn't parallel to what happens when the human has technical difficulties. In those cases we have been saying that the time loss for the human always stands. But the difference seems to be that for the bot we can verify exactly what happened on the server, whereas with a remote human player we have no way to prove that the timeout was unintentional.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
 
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: 2009 Arimaa Challenge
« Reply #48 on: Mar 20th, 2009, 2:28pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 20th, 2009, 1:43pm, Fritzlein wrote:| If the human player is allowed to choose to resume or not, then the technical problem disadvantages the bot. |
|
In this case it advantages the bot, because aaaa prefers to continue (or even immediately resign) when he is losing, but restart when he is winning. Either advantage or disadvantage is equally problematic.
In principle I prefer continuations when it is an interruption to a functional game, but I don't know what to do if humans refuse (except to show them that they are distorting the system). If that becomes a regular occurrence then I agree with Fritz that for consistency we would have to settle for always replaying.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: 2009 Arimaa Challenge
« Reply #49 on: Mar 20th, 2009, 2:49pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 20th, 2009, 1:43pm, Fritzlein wrote:| I my suggestion isn't parallel to what happens when the human has technical difficulties. In those cases we have been saying that the time loss for the human always stands. But the difference seems to be that for the bot we can verify exactly what happened on the server, whereas with a remote human player we have no way to prove that the timeout was unintentional. |
|
I agree that BvB timeouts and HvH timeouts are different, and should be treated differently. I suppose that makes HvB a little unbalanced in favour of the bots if we give them a second chance upon network timeout, but never give the humans a second chance unless it's a server error. But I don't think I mind this inconsistency too much, as it adds an incentive to omar to make sure the bot server has stable network connections.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Janzert
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #247
Gender:
Posts: 1016
|
|
Re: 2009 Arimaa Challenge
« Reply #50 on: Mar 20th, 2009, 4:00pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I think it makes sense to discount games when the tournament organizer has complete control of the hardware involved as is the case here. If (or I hope, when) there are bot tournaments that allow bot author controlled hardware then I think the policy should be the same as it is in current HvH tournaments. In other words I don't think the distinction here is or should be HvH, HvB or BvB but rather who has control of the relevant hardware and if the system(s) under control of the tournament organizer can be shown to have been a cause of the problem.
Janzert
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: 2009 Arimaa Challenge
« Reply #51 on: Mar 20th, 2009, 4:59pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Good point Janzert. When BvB is from the developer's hardware, it makes sense to treat it exactly the same as we currently do HvH.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2009 Arimaa Challenge
« Reply #52 on: Mar 20th, 2009, 8:14pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 20th, 2009, 12:14pm, aaaa wrote:| If there is no objection, I'd rather play the game afresh. |
|
I'll wait to see what the TD decides.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
RonWeasley
Forum Guru
Harry's friend (Arimaa player #441)
Gender:
Posts: 882
|
|
Re: 2009 Arimaa Challenge
« Reply #53 on: Mar 21st, 2009, 10:08am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 20th, 2009, 8:14pm, omar wrote:
I'll wait to see what the TD decides. |
|
I decide to continue this game from the position at which the network error occurred.
It's getting hard for me to keep track of all the situations here. Our first problem was playing at the wrong time control, so the problem persisted through the entire game. Therefore those games were invalidated. Next bots were playing on a server that had other processes going simultaneously. In those cases we didn't report on the fraction of times the overlap occurred. I assumed that information was not available so the only alternative was to discard all of those games. Now there is a specific network error that happened at a detectable time in the game. Everything was within specifications before this so the game sequence counts during this time. The game should continue from this point if technically feasible.
In general, while the server/network side is working correctly, moves count. Player preference is not an issue here. I think this principle has been applied consistently this year.
TD
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2009 Arimaa Challenge
« Reply #54 on: Mar 21st, 2009, 10:32am » |
Quote Modify
|
Thanks for the decision Ron. Yes, this year has been plagued with all kinds of problems, but I think we've navigated through all of them pretty safely thanks to your guidance.
Aaaa, please let me know what time you would like to play the game and I will get it setup at that time. I will also leave you my phone number via a private message so if it seems I didn't see your message in time, you can call me.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: 2009 Arimaa Challenge
« Reply #55 on: Mar 21st, 2009, 11:43am » |
Quote Modify
|
Apologies in advance for what can be perceived as a power play, but, although I know I will be stepping on the toes of the tournament director with this, I cannot in good conscience resume this game if the understanding is that this is supposed to be a fair assessment of Clueless's playing strength by matching it against mine.
In the time that has passed now, I have been in the position to continue to ponder the game in its last position, while Clueless obviously hasn't. I have taken the liberty to try to unrate the game, only for it to be denied as the result of an unfavorable adjudication by Bomb2005P2. Since I wasn't entirely sure whether the returned score was with respect to the timed-out player or the person doing the unrating (I may theoretically have missed some kind of killer tactic), I felt I needed to confirm my advantage in order to be in a better position to argue for a replay, so I wouldn't be accused of being self-serving. So, I let my own bot loose on the position as well.
Given the taint of these analyses, if I were to continue this game now, I would technically be cheating, to say nothing of the time advantage.
If there is to be no replay, then I will simply end my participation in the preliminary now.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2009 Arimaa Challenge
« Reply #56 on: Mar 21st, 2009, 3:22pm » |
Quote Modify
|
That is a good point I had not even considered before. Since you know what move clueless was going to make from the logs; and knowing that clueless is deterministic it will likely make the same move, you do have an advantage if the game is continued from the current position. I think this is a good reason for the TD to reconsider your appeal. From a technical perspective it is easier for me to unrate the current game and let you play a new one then it is to restore the timed out game, but I will follow the TD's decision and will not unrate the game unless instructed to do so.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
RonWeasley
Forum Guru
Harry's friend (Arimaa player #441)
Gender:
Posts: 882
|
|
Re: 2009 Arimaa Challenge
« Reply #57 on: Mar 21st, 2009, 3:28pm » |
Quote Modify
|
No hard feelings here, aaaa, since you make reasonable points. The game and its players all get better when we discuss these things. I recognize that no ruling in this case works perfectly and there are merits and perils to different alternatives. Nowhere in the rules does it say players can't disagree.
I encourage this debate to continue and its resolution be expressed in next year's rules.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
RonWeasley
Forum Guru
Harry's friend (Arimaa player #441)
Gender:
Posts: 882
|
|
Re: 2009 Arimaa Challenge
« Reply #58 on: Mar 21st, 2009, 3:36pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 21st, 2009, 3:22pm, omar wrote:That is a good point I had not even considered before. Since you know what move clueless was going to make from the logs; and knowing that clueless is deterministic it will likely make the same move, you do have an advantage if the game is continued from the current position. I think this is a good reason for the TD to reconsider your appeal. From a technical perspective it is easier for me to unrate the current game and let you play a new one then it is to restore the timed out game, but I will follow the TD's decision and will not unrate the game unless instructed to do so.
|
|
I'm still ruling that the game be continued. This provides consistency to this year's tournaments and I have already ruled continuation previously. While it's reasonable to change this policy in subsequent tournaments, I'm going to try to stay consistent for this year. Again, the basis for the ruling is that legal moves do not get taken back unless there is a technical issue that can't be overcome.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2009 Arimaa Challenge
« Reply #59 on: Mar 21st, 2009, 3:37pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Ron, you still haven't said what happens if aaaa doesn't resume the game from the timed out position. I assume it doesn't count, and neither does aaaa's game with the same color against Gnobot, but it would be nice to hear that explicitly if that is your ruling.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print