Author |
Topic: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame (Read 10996 times) |
|
PMertens
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #692
Gender: 
Posts: 437
|
 |
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #60 on: Jul 1st, 2005, 1:05pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
and I even believe there could be one more rabbit or two 
David got work to do ...
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
PMertens
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #692
Gender:
Posts: 437
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #61 on: Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
and now I got Bomb-Blitz MDDCR in 47 moves ... (Game 16655) ...
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 6th, 2005, 3:41am by PMertens » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
 
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #62 on: Jul 4th, 2005, 12:16am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 3rd, 2005, 11:43pm, PMertens wrote:| and now I got Bomb-Blitz MDDCR in 47 moves ... (Game 16655) ... |
|
Wow, well done, I'll take a look at what I was doing wrong!
Quote:If Omar really told you to put up that Blitz-record than I was wrong and of course I am sorry I falsely accused you.
I just never got an official (or unofficial) statement by him. Until then:
Therefore I intend to delete that record from the botbashing page If I dont here otherwise. |
|
I think Arimanator is right on this one. It seems Omar is happy to have the machine dependant bots listed in a second category on the Wiki. Look in the wiki history to see when he changed his mind.
Quote:Anyway you will forgive me if I stop recordhunting now for a while and leave that to others.
Should you take that record away than have fun with it  (whoever takes it) |
|
I think you've probably got that one for a while, but there are lots more to populate!
BTW... I propose we scrub the "beaten in fastest time" category for system-independent bots, because that category would be system dependent! [In fact to be honest I think the fastest-time category is a little silly anyway, since it can always be beaten by following the minimum-move record at a pace as fast as your net connection could handle. I bet I could write a bot to get all of these records .]
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
PMertens
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #692
Gender:
Posts: 437
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #63 on: Jul 4th, 2005, 1:24am » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| Wow, well done, I'll take a look at what I was doing wrong! |
|
dont be so modest again - after all I stole your strategy
Quote:| I think Arimanator is right on this one. It seems Omar is happy to have the machine dependant bots listed in a second category on the Wiki. Look in the wiki history to see when he changed his mind. |
|
Mea culpa, mea culpa
but maybe for better overview we might think about limiting the bots - there are just so many ...
Quote:| I think you've probably got that one for a while, but there are lots more to populate! |
|
have fun - but without me 
Quote:| BTW... I propose we scrub the "beaten in fastest time" category for system-independent bots, because that category would be system dependent! [In fact to be honest I think the fastest-time category is a little silly anyway, since it can always be beaten by following the minimum-move record at a pace as fast as your net connection could handle. I bet I could write a bot to get all of these records . |
|
I concur
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #64 on: Jul 5th, 2005, 12:26am » |
Quote Modify
|
Yes, I did ask Pat to add his record against BombBlitz.
I figure we should keep the records against the varialbe performance bots at least until they start to get old and the first section against the fixed performance bots begins to get filled.
I agree the records based on time are silly now that Toby has pointed out the flaw. I'll remove them.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
PMertens
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #692
Gender:
Posts: 437
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #65 on: Jul 5th, 2005, 12:29am » |
Quote Modify
|
Mea culpa and sorry for that
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #66 on: Jul 6th, 2005, 7:45am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 5th, 2005, 12:26am, omar wrote:| until ... the first section against the fixed performance bots begins to get filled. |
|
Let's try to at least get a few markers on the board to get the bidding started.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #67 on: Jul 24th, 2005, 9:26pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I have added Arimaalon and Arimaazon to the Wiki page, since each has hundreds of games by now. I can't get the material handicap records from the database, though. 99of9, didn't you beat Arimaalon at some ridiculous material odds?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #68 on: Jul 25th, 2005, 4:01am » |
Quote Modify
|
I can't remember actually. I think my biggest odds were always shallowblue. So don't worry about it - if I remember I'll post them.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #69 on: Jul 27th, 2005, 6:42pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 24th, 2005, 9:26pm, Fritzlein wrote:| 99of9, didn't you beat Arimaalon at some ridiculous material odds? |
|
I found the games and added them to the botbashing page. You won with only the elephant and eight rabbits left. I wonder how that could be improved. Perhaps using only an elephant and seven rabbits? But that would leave a hole, which would be tricky. Hmm...
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #70 on: Jul 27th, 2005, 8:41pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Ahhh yes.
I expect it could be done with less than 8 rabbits... but it might need a different approach - it definitely wouldn't have the safety of knowing that your backline was complete.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #71 on: Aug 2nd, 2005, 9:58pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Yes, go ahead and add that.
Toby was also suggesting a seperate section for misc. bot bashing acheivements. A seperate Wiki page for the monthly bot bashing challenge might also be a good place to add such games.
Also we probably should make a Wiki page for describing and displaying the various superstratagies.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #72 on: Aug 2nd, 2005, 11:15pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 1st, 2005, 2:28pm, Arimanator wrote:Victory by immobilization with no pieces lost by either side.
Of course that means that my record appears in 3 categories, but I believe it's only fair since one could win one category and not the other 2. |
|
The same could be said for "Victory by goal with no pieces lost by either side."
Then we would have 3 no-pieces-lost categories:
1) No pieces lost, overall
2) No pieces lost, goal
3) No pieces lost, immobilisation
The least interesting of these three categories would be #1 because you could always figure it out from the other two.
So, since you have put in #3, I propose putting in #2 and cutting out #1 (for any bot where your special kind of victory is achieved).
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #73 on: Aug 3rd, 2005, 2:11am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 3rd, 2005, 12:32am, Arimanator wrote:
This is a matter of opinion but I believe that the "No pieces lost" of the hall is implicitly a "no pieces lost overall" hence the stance I've taken which flows logically from that assumption.
You can add if you wish a "no pieces lost goal" but, with all due respect, it seems a little ridiculous since, up until now, every win without exception has been a "no pieces lost goal" win, which intuitively induce the notion that it is a lot less remarkable than a "no pieces lost immobilization" which your option would somewhat deny.
I believe that adding a "no pieces lost goal" will only add confusion to people's mind making them think that there's nothing remarkable in adding "No pieces" to "Immobilization" when to my knowledge mine is the only one on record.
I apologize to everyone around here that to make my point (or so I hope) I had to make such a display of egregious immodesty but I cannot think of any other way.
Besides if you're worried about adding new lines in every bot list of record, I believe we don't have to.
The P3's list for instance is incomplete and is most likely to stay that way for months or even years.
To say nothing of the P4's which will sooner or later get Fritzlein game's result, (hopefully in the no pieces lost immobilization category )
Anyway we don't have to add that line to every bot's list only the ones to which there'll be at least one occurence of it being achieved.
You also talked about the lone elephant challenge, but this is not a PX challenge (so far) and I believe it would violate one of the most basic principle of the hall to put under the same title PX and non PX games when Omar explicitely put them apart in that page. ( Same thing about inducing confusion into people's minds)
If you want to add the lone elephant to the blitz's list be my guest but please don't mingle moody bots with reliable ones or you run the risk of making the whole thing meaningless.
Did I get my point across? ( I anxioulsy hope so). |
|
It appears you have misunderstood my posting, I'm sorry I did not make it clear enough. I'll have another try at clarifying my position:
You have added in a new category. I accept that. Earlier on the game chat I was arguing that this was likely to remain a rarity (through lack of attempts) and so should be put on a special challenges page like the rabbit-pulling challenge, rather than being associated with each and every bot. However Omar is happy for you to put it into the main lists, and I accept that.
Now that it is in, we have 2 no-pieces-lost categories, namely:
No-Pieces-Lost Overall
and
No-Pieces-Lost Immobilisation
However we could choose an alternative pair, namely:
No-Pieces-Lost Goal
and
No-Pieces-Lost Immobilisation
Of these two options, the latter gives more information, whilst using up the same number of lines on the page. If you really want to know the No-Pieces-Lost Overall record, you can always work it out from the other two.
Therefore I propose that we list this latter pair rather than the former pair.
It has nothing to do with which is rarer, or which usually takes more moves, or which has been done more often until now.
My proposal is in keeping with the way we do the Pieces-Lost categories. We have these categories:
Immobilisation
and
Goal
rather than the categories:
Immobilisation
and
Overall
It's quite straightforward set theory, nothing to get heated up about. I can reply to each of your points in detail if you'd like me to, but I think you missed the thrust of my original post, so hopefully this will not be necessary.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Bot-bashing Hall of Fame
« Reply #74 on: Aug 3rd, 2005, 2:37am » |
Quote Modify
|
On a completely unrelated note:
on Aug 3rd, 2005, 12:32am, Arimanator wrote:You also talked about the lone elephant challenge, but this is not a PX challenge (so far) ...
If you want to add the lone elephant to the blitz's list be my guest |
|
Actually if my memory serves me correctly the lone elephant challenge was from a time in the distant past when neither the PX's nor Blitz (nor Arimanator!) existed. It was proposed originally against the tournament level bomb (and perhaps speedy).
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 3rd, 2005, 2:37am by 99of9 » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print