Author |
Topic: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes (Read 8212 times) |
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender: 
Posts: 5928
|
 |
Re: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes
« Reply #45 on: Jun 27th, 2008, 2:21pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Jun 27th, 2008, 2:15pm, Janzert wrote:| Another reason for time cutoffs is for tournaments that need to get so many rounds or games played within a certain amount of time. While this isn't much of a concern for the internet based games I imagine it will become a much larger one if (once?) live tournaments become popular. This also means that unfortunately the whatever rule is chosen doesn't effect much now but could be much more important in the future. |
|
If the rule ever becomes important, it should be replaced with accelerating time controls. If I remember correctly, the consensus of the previous discussion of this rule was that accelerating time controls were the most satisfactory solution, and the only reason not to have them instead of a cutoff is that they are difficult to implement.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes
« Reply #46 on: Jun 27th, 2008, 2:29pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Hmmm, no one commented on my proposal to count the number of rabbits before other pieces, which I consider to be a natural extension of the victory condition of the game.
Anyway, here's another, crazier idea: Let the 4-step limited version of the current bot champion (or winner of the challenge qualifier) play out the game on its own.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 27th, 2008, 2:32pm by aaaa » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes
« Reply #47 on: Jun 27th, 2008, 2:47pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 27th, 2008, 2:29pm, aaaa wrote:| Hmmm, no one commented on my proposal to count the number of rabbits before other pieces, which I consider to be a natural extension of the victory condition of the game. |
|
Sure, that makes sense. Although the victory condition could be extended in many ways. Is having more rabbits more important than having the furthest advanced rabbit? What about the second-furthest advanced rabbit? It's pretty easy to get a score function just as complicated as the one Omar just replaced. I guess my triple-tiebreaker was complicated too...
One criterion to choose between score functions is to see which works better as the evaluation function for a 1-ply bot. Clauchau showed us that "have the furthest advanced rabbit" works much better than "have the most pieces". Unfortunately for my proposal, "maximize the old score function" works better than either of these.
Quote:| Anyway, here's another, crazier idea: Let the 4-step limited version of the current bot champion (or winner of the challenge qualifier) play out the game on its own. |
|
Yeah, or have the current bot champion evaluate it for 60 seconds and just decide. Using a bot is a procedure that is easily described, and one that will agree with who humans think is winning more often than any formula will. I like it! I believe that at present BombP2 determines whether or not a game that ended on time can be unrated.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 27th, 2008, 2:53pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes
« Reply #48 on: Jun 27th, 2008, 3:06pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 27th, 2008, 2:47pm, Fritzlein wrote:| or have the current bot champion evaluate it for 60 seconds and just decide. |
|
I thought of that too, but it's not necessarily the case that the bot comes with an analysis mode.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Janzert
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #247
Gender:
Posts: 1016
|
|
Re: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes
« Reply #49 on: Jun 27th, 2008, 4:50pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 27th, 2008, 2:47pm, Fritzlein wrote:| One criterion to choose between score functions is to see which works better as the evaluation function for a 1-ply bot. Clauchau showed us that "have the furthest advanced rabbit" works much better than "have the most pieces". Unfortunately for my proposal, "maximize the old score function" works better than either of these. |
|
I would tend to think that seeing what works better as a predictor of the eventual winner would be the most important criteria. Maybe weighting towards positions closer to the endgame since presumably the time will run out closer to the endgame than the beginning.  And now thinking about it in this way I'm not really sure which would come out the best. At least among the simple methods, a good bot should beat any of them.
Janzert
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 27th, 2008, 4:52pm by Janzert » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mistre
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 553
|
|
Re: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes
« Reply #50 on: Jun 27th, 2008, 6:27pm » |
Quote Modify
|
How about the winner is whoever took the least amount of time when the time runs out? Or was that the solution you were referring to when you mentioned accelerated time controls?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes
« Reply #51 on: Jun 27th, 2008, 8:13pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jun 27th, 2008, 6:27pm, mistre wrote:| How about the winner is whoever took the least amount of time when the time runs out? Or was that the solution you were referring to when you mentioned accelerated time controls? |
|
That's basically equivalent to having the last acceleration be sudden death. I think chess tournaments sometimes do this, for example 2 hours for 40 moves, plus 1 hour for the next 40 moves, plus half an hour sudden death. Game is over in seven hours max. However, because not all reserve time is banked in the Arimaa game room, the "least time" criterion works out a little different.
I prefer a gradual acceleration of, say, 60 seconds per move to 45 seconds to 30 seconds to 15 seconds. That way players have to speed up steadily rather than making a "time gamble" where one player might have two minutes left in sudden death where the other player has twenty. You can say that long-term time management is part of the game, but I'd rather force the players to move steadily faster than have them take chances based on how many moves they think the game might last.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 27th, 2008, 8:22pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Janzert
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #247
Gender:
Posts: 1016
|
|
Re: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes
« Reply #52 on: Jun 27th, 2008, 9:16pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I do see a certain draw towards the accelerating time controls, but then you end up with something like the 2008 US Women's Chess Championship (Relevant part of the video is 20 seconds to 1 minute if you haven't seen it yet). After which there was a fair amount of controversy and commentary (1, 2, 3) on it being a disgrace to chess.
Janzert
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 27th, 2008, 9:17pm by Janzert » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes
« Reply #53 on: Jun 28th, 2008, 9:40am » |
Quote Modify
|
Yes, this video is an argument against any sudden death time control. If we accelerate to some fastest speed, say 15 seconds per move, to insure that the game lasts for a certain length, say at least 160 moves, and then we have a time cutoff, I might prefer the board position to decide the outcome in some way rather than total time used. If total time used to decide, then an eventual sudden-death time scramble is inevitable.
Chess has a problem that Arimaa does not have, namely games that are drawn on the board. Therefore we can have Armageddon games by getting in enough moves by accelerating the time control. We have never had an over-the-board drawn position. Until we encounter a position that is legitimately drawn, or a game that would naturally last a huge number of moves, the issue of what to do after time cutoff is merely an issue of what to do if some player or players decide to behave oddly.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes
« Reply #54 on: Jun 30th, 2008, 6:44am » |
Quote Modify
|
When I was rethinking about the scoring method it seemed to me that no matter what method was picked there would always be some positions for which it would be wrong. Also trying to making the scoring method more accurate in predicting the outcome tends to make it more complex to the point that humans would have a hard time evaluating it in real time. What seemed more important was for the scoring method to encourage players to make real irreversible progress on the board and not just shuffle pieces. Ideally the scoring method should encourage irreversible progress that results in a natural ending to the game and thus the scoring method never needs to be evoked. One problem with all scoring methods is that the player in lead will want to take as long as possible to make the move while the player who is behind will want the moves to be made faster. Only accelerating time controls can fix this.
The only thing in Arimaa which is totally irreversible are captures. Rabbit advancements could be undone by the opponent pushing your rabbit back. Also captures are not as easy to achieve and usually require several moves worth of effort to setup and execute. Thus a player who was behind could not so easily make a move that gives them the lead just before game time runs out.
I like gatsby's proposal that in case of a tie the player who previously had the lead wins. When total captures are used to determine the winner this would require a player to make two captures in one move to jump ahead.
I also though about using a bot to decide the outcome, but it didn't seem that natural. It also requires storing with the game which bot and what bot setting were used to decide the outcome.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
The_Jeh
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #634
Gender:
Posts: 460
|
|
Re: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes
« Reply #55 on: Jun 30th, 2008, 9:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I won a game by elimination (does the "e" mean elimination or extermination?) using the old client. However, the box that popped up to announce the end of the game was blank. Could this be fixed? Those new to the game might become confused.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 30th, 2008, 9:46pm by The_Jeh » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes
« Reply #56 on: Jul 2nd, 2008, 8:46pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Decided to use the word "elimination" instead of "extermination". So e = elimination. If you notice the word "extermination" being used anywhere, please let me know via the Contact page.
I think you were using the old client (Flash V1). I am not going to make any changes to that client and hope to phase it out soon (by the end of July). I suggest switching to the Flash V2 client. If you encounter any problems with it, please let me know via the Contact page. Thanks.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
aaaa
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #958
Posts: 768
|
|
Re: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes
« Reply #57 on: Jul 3rd, 2008, 2:56am » |
Quote Modify
|
This page is no longer reachable by clicking on the "Reason" link on a "Recent Games" page, at least not for me.
BTW, shouldn't the 'p' reason also be listed as being no longer in use, like the 'n' one is?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
mistre
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 553
|
|
Re: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes
« Reply #58 on: Jul 3rd, 2008, 5:35am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Jul 2nd, 2008, 8:46pm, omar wrote:
I think you were using the old client (Flash V1). I am not going to make any changes to that client and hope to phase it out soon (by the end of July). I suggest switching to the Flash V2 client. If you encounter any problems with it, please let me know via the Contact page. Thanks.
|
|
Omar, Please do not phase out Flash V1! I am still using it as I still don't like the new client (after recently trying it again). In my opinion, the graphics are better, the sound is better and I like the layout better. I would think that there are other supporters of V1 out there - please speak up as well.
Is there any particular reason that V1 has to go away?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Soter
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2381
Gender:
Posts: 138
|
|
Re: 2008.07.01 Core Rule Changes
« Reply #59 on: Jul 3rd, 2008, 10:49am » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:Omar, Please do not phase out Flash V1! I am still using it as I still don't like the new client (after recently trying it again). In my opinion, the graphics are better, the sound is better and I like the layout better. I would think that there are other supporters of V1 out there - please speak up as well.
Is there any particular reason that V1 has to go away? |
|
Another supporter of V1 speaks up and agrees with mistre.
|
| « Last Edit: Jul 3rd, 2008, 10:50am by Soter » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print