Author |
Topic: Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot_spe (Read 7190 times) |
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
 
Gender: 
Posts: 1413
|
 |
Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot_spe
« on: Dec 22nd, 2004, 12:53pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Interestingly Omar's rating is almost equal to OmarFast's rating, and bot_bomb's is almost equal to bot_speedy's.
Perhaps quality is nothing to do with time control 
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot
« Reply #1 on: Dec 27th, 2004, 1:06am » |
Quote Modify
|
I played a lot of fast games with the 'omar' account and lost to speedy. I think that's why its close to the omarFast account.
In the future I would like to classify games into different speed catagories like fast, regular, slow and postal and then have seperate ratings for each. Thus each person would have 4 different ratings; one for each speed catagory.
Omar
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MrBrain
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #344
Gender:
Posts: 148
|
|
Re: Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot
« Reply #2 on: Dec 27th, 2004, 5:57pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I love that idea.
I think what you have as "Slow" could be the official time control for an arimaa match. I would recommend no slower than 2 minutes per move. If the idea of choosing the winner at the end of the game time limit by who's used less time (rather than the scoring function) is implemented, we could have a time control for an official match of 2/2/100/10/5. This time control could be used for all official human-human, computer-computer, and human-computer games. This would ensure that no game would exceed 5 hours. The end-effect of this control with the new deciding mechanism would be that in a very long game (more than 70 or so moves), players would have to eventually move faster to avoid using more than half of the time.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 27th, 2004, 7:11pm by MrBrain » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MrBrain
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #344
Gender:
Posts: 148
|
|
Re: Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot_spe
« Reply #3 on: Dec 27th, 2004, 6:05pm » |
Quote Modify
|
But actually, each catagory would have to fall within a range. Here's a proposal:
0:45 per move or faster -- fast
0:46 - 1:30 per move -- regular
1:31 - 1:00:00 per move -- slow
More than 1 hour per move -- postal
How's that seem?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MrBrain
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #344
Gender:
Posts: 148
|
|
Re: Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot_spe
« Reply #4 on: Dec 27th, 2004, 7:11pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Actually, I don't like the connotation of "slow". Call them instead:
Bullet,
Fast,
Regular,
Postal
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot
« Reply #5 on: Dec 28th, 2004, 12:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
There was a wacky idea floated in the discussion of ICC and FICS ratings, which I think has some merit. The idea is that we want to distinguish skill at fast play from skill at slow play, but we don't want to have to maintain four different ratings (or five or six as ICC does). So we fix a super fast time, say 15 seconds per move, and have anything that fast or faster contribute only to the fast rating. Also we fix a super-slow time, say 4 minutes per move, and have anything that slow or slower contribute only to the slow rating. For any time control in between, i.e. for most games, we have it contribute to both ratings in geometric proportion. The formula for how much the slow rating is affected would be (lg(seconds-per-move/15))/4, where lg is the base 2 logarithm. For example
| time control | fast rating | slow rating | | 15 seconds | 100% | 0% | | 30 seconds | 75% | 25% | | 45 seconds | 60.4% | 39.6% | | 1 minute | 50% | 50% | | 2 minutes | 25% | 75% | | 3 minutes | 10.4% | 89.6% | | 4 minutes | 0% | 100% |
You may wonder why I chose 15 seconds per move as the fast end rather than the fastest time control currently available. My hunch is that if you start having a "fast" rating, and you offer 15 seconds per move as an option for people, then they will play a lot of it. On the Internet chess club, the most popular time control is 5 minutes per game, and a great many games are played at even faster speeds, so I think there would be a popular demand for 15-second games. I certainly would like to try out speedy at that time control!
I chose 4 minutes per move as the slow end in order distinguish postal games from slow tournament games. Actually, I doubt there will be many games slower than 2 minutes per move except for postal games. It might make as much sense to put the upper limit at 3 minutes per move, but I'm partial to widely spacing the extremes.
[Edit: I messed up the following description in my original post.]
Anyway, to calculate an example, suppose Bomb has a fast rating of 2200 and a slow rating of 1600, whereas I have a fast rating of 2100 and a slow rating of 2000. Suppose I play Bomb at a time control 2 minutes per move. Then my effective rating is 2000*0.75 + 2100*0.25 and Bomb's effective rating is 1600*0.75 + 2200*0.25. So for this particular speed my edge in rating is 2025 to 1750. If I lose, I would lose about 25 points, and 75% of that adjustment would go on our respective slow ratings, while 25% of that adjustment would go on our respective fast ratings.
Well, maybe the math is too weird, but I like the general idea. Bots could play at a variety of time controls without needing extra account (e.g. bomb/speedy) and without messing up the ratings (e.g. clueless vs. speedy at 30 seconds has as much chance of winning as clueless vs. bomb at 120 seconds, but the former gives clueless more rating points for no reason). All time controls are distinguished, in that they affect the ratings in different proportion. The scale is continuous without weird jumps like 59 seconds per move affecting one rating and 60 seconds per move affecting a completely different rating, plus you don't have to have four (or more) different ratings. What do y'all think?
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 28th, 2004, 10:12pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
fotland
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #211
Gender:
Posts: 216
|
|
Re: Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot_spe
« Reply #6 on: Dec 28th, 2004, 1:41pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I think 15 second games will give speedy a big edge, but give it a try
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot_spe
« Reply #7 on: Dec 28th, 2004, 4:57pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Yeah, it's tough playing that fast against a computer, but it sure is fun.
We need a way for bots to offer and/or accept multiple time controls. It would be great if speedy would take matches at a time control 30 seconds or less, say, so that people could choose whether to go for the bullet game or merely blitz.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
99of9
Forum Guru
Gnobby's creator (player #314)
Gender:
Posts: 1413
|
|
Re: Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot
« Reply #8 on: Jan 3rd, 2005, 6:18am » |
Quote Modify
|
I think Fritz's idea is GREAT.
This would totally solve our time-based-ratings conundrum without introducing millions of different volatile ratings. It also doesn't look too hard to introduce.
The only real assumption is that if someone is better at 1 min than they are at 3 min, then they will be even better still at 30 sec. That seems quite reasonable to me.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MrBrain
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #344
Gender:
Posts: 148
|
|
Re: Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot_spe
« Reply #9 on: Jan 3rd, 2005, 7:52am » |
Quote Modify
|
I also like the Fritzlein idea. Perhaps just have one more rating - postal? If it's just folded into the slow rating, this seems sufficient though. Might need to tweak the percentages. 45 seconds going almost 40% to slow rating seems not quite right.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 3rd, 2005, 7:54am by MrBrain » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MrBrain
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #344
Gender:
Posts: 148
|
|
Re: Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot_spe
« Reply #10 on: Jan 3rd, 2005, 7:57am » |
Quote Modify
|
How about this:
time fast slow
0:15 100% 0%
0:30 95% 5%
0:45 85% 15%
1:00 70% 30%
1:15 50% 50%
1:30 30% 70%
2:00 15% 85%
2:30 5% 95%
3:00, postal 0% 100%
It's not quite as mathematical, but it does incorporate time controls used in the past, and it seems a little closer to how the different time controls feel (at least to me) from playing the game. What do you think?
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 3rd, 2005, 8:09am by MrBrain » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MrBrain
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #344
Gender:
Posts: 148
|
|
Re: Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot_spe
« Reply #11 on: Jan 3rd, 2005, 8:20am » |
Quote Modify
|
And all this recent talk about time controls gives me an idea as to how to incorporate a time control into the wording of the Arimaa challenge itself (something I think needs to be done).
The human designee can choose (before the match) the time control that they like best with the following two restrictions:
1. The amount of time per move shall not exceed 3 minutes (the first 100% slow time control).
2. The amount of time before the game must end shall not be less than 6 hours. (Whether you do 3 hours max per player, or 6 hours total with the time-decision mechanism.)
By doing the above, you can avoid what happened last year, which is that Omar got bored with the 3-minute time control. While the bots are still not up to human level, the human can choose a faster control so as to not drag the games out. Perhaps 15 years from now, when bots may be quite strong, the human can choose the maximum time to think to maximize their chances against the killer bot. But while the flexibility is nice for the humans, the two restrictions ensure that a time control is not chosen that is purposely unfair to the bot.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 3rd, 2005, 8:22am by MrBrain » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot
« Reply #12 on: Jan 3rd, 2005, 11:40am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jan 3rd, 2005, 7:57am, MrBrain wrote:How about this:
time fast slow
0:15 100% 0%
0:30 95% 5%
0:45 85% 15%
1:00 70% 30%
1:15 50% 50%
1:30 30% 70%
2:00 15% 85%
2:30 5% 95%
3:00, postal 0% 100%
It's not quite as mathematical, but it does incorporate time controls used in the past, and it seems a little closer to how the different time controls feel (at least to me) from playing the game. What do you think? |
|
The first thing that jumps out at me is that there should be a much bigger distinction between 15-second games and 30-second games, not just 5%. The difference in how it feels to play at those two time controls is huge. In my opinion, it's as great as the difference between a 30-second game and a 1-minute game, or between a 1-minute game and a 2-minute game. That's why I suggest a logarithmic scale. An extra 15 seconds per move doesn't matter so much if you've already got 90 seconds to think, but it's huge if you had only 15 seconds in the first place. In general doubling the time to think should double its closeness to being postal.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MrBrain
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #344
Gender:
Posts: 148
|
|
Re: Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot_spe
« Reply #13 on: Jan 3rd, 2005, 12:18pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Well, again, I'm just going on how the time controls "feel". To me, 30 seconds doesn't seem anything other than really fast. It doesn't seem more than 5% slow. Having 45 seconds going 40% to slow seems really out of whack to me. I guess it maybe is my preference for being able to calculate variations. 1:15 seemed very fast to me during the championship. I was rushed on almost every move. That's why I don't think it can be more than 50% slow.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
MrBrain
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #344
Gender:
Posts: 148
|
|
Re: Omar = OmarFast , bot_bomb = bot_spe
« Reply #14 on: Jan 4th, 2005, 7:26am » |
Quote Modify
|
And using your same reasoning, if we had a 7-second control, then 15 seconds would be 20% or 25% "slow". I think just because we're being somewhat insane and adding a 15-second control (which I will probably never play), that shouldn't be an excuse to make 30 seconds then count 25% towards slow. 30 seconds and 15 seconds are both very "fast". To me it's the difference between ridiculous speed and ludicrous speed. Just because we have ludicrous speed, it doesn't mean that ridiculous is slow.
You have to have some limit where it's just totally fast. Before anyone even mentioned 15 seconds, 30 seconds would have been a reasonable fast "boundary". Anything below could have just been 100% fast. I'm making a concession in my table by even calling 30 seconds 5% slow. 25% is way to much in my opinion.
|
| « Last Edit: Jan 4th, 2005, 7:26am by MrBrain » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print