MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: MSmits could you help me with something? :)
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: I have a function to calculate the values of the next turn:
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: def calcNext(list): http://chat.codingame.com/pastebin/900f0b11-da86-4d70-aa1a-b464d02e66ec
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: I made the input and output both lists so I can plug it into the function multiple times to predict multiple turns ahead
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: Are there any errors you can spot?
dbdr: Illedan?
DaNinja: MaliciouslyCrypticUsername atan2 returns the angle in radians between PI and -PI
DaNinja: need to convert it to degrees
DaNinja: and subtract your pod current angle to get the angle to target
halloweens: guys, how to see the code that ppl submitted to the leaderborad, I can't find one in the mars lander optimization
DaNinja: you cant see other solutions for optimizations
halloweens: okay then, thank you btw
Diptastic: fyi
Chuck Norris' keyboard has 2 keys: 0 and white space.
Illedan: yes dbdr?
Illedan: Solved 1 food map now?
Marchete: "will code for food"
struct: "will give food for eval"
martinpapa69: ok, so feeding binary encoded integers to nn does not work
Marchete: hmm, as one-hots :D
Marchete: but (float)(intval)
martinpapa69: ye sounded like a smart idea. but it just..baD
Marchete: I don't thin so
Marchete: afaik NN search gradients
Marchete: so it assumes -1 bad 1 good
Marchete: and all between are gradients
Marchete: for turn?
Marchete: I thought about some turn%12 (a full rotation)
Marchete: then some encoding
dbdr: Illedan you appeared online, I guess you just left your machine running :)
martinpapa69: hm. i used it for cell values
dbdr: not solved 1 and 2, but made a few optims. and thought about odd levels, but not implemented anything
Illedan: Yeah :) Tend to happen. Every day
Illedan: I started the JS thingy atleast, hopefully done tonight :)
OldJohn: @matrinpapa69 yes binaries values of integer does not work easily with oware since it is harder to encode necessary if conditions such that if cell_value[5] = 13 and cell_value[6]=0 and ... : Here onehot encoding is perfect. That ma explain why onehot is better here. However, it is natural when you have just to use add,minus,multiply and so one on input values which is often the case with NN in real life.
OldJohn: OneHot is perfect for categorical values :-) A, cat, dog. And here in fact it is nearly categorical inputs :-)
jacek: and it will grab the concept that empty house, or 1-2 seeds houses are much different than the others
jacek: implicit little domain knowledge
jacek: + it's faster
martinpapa69: the information is still there in binary encoding, but ye the network needs to use more weights to learn, when a house has x seeds. i thought after long training it could be maybe possible to teach it, so i can save space
dbdr: if you need more weights, it might not save space
martinpapa69: I mean. if you use one-hot, the network needs 1 weight, to know if you have lets say 5 seeds in slot 1
martinpapa69: but if you use binary encoding, needs more
Marchete: how do you encode a binary on a float?
martinpapa69: input[0] = val^0
martinpapa69: input[1] = val^1
Marchete: so each bit on 1 input float?
martinpapa69: yep
Marchete: ahhh
Marchete: ok, then maybe it's ok
martinpapa69: it worked...but performed much worse
struct: story of my life
jacek: oO
jacek: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/718853716266188890/868796772338778132/NNUE_Mnps.png
jacek: quite speed vs accuracy tradeoff in sf14
struct: so i must make my bt bot slower
struct: got it
OldJohn: Did you find on which games NNUE is trained ?
jacek: just reading random snippsets from sf discord
jacek: but lately theyve been training on leela zero games as well
OldJohn: OK so singular extensions on MCTS does not improve the edngame play too much
MSmits: it should not, because the endgame is usually solved
MSmits: if neumann pops in, tell him his cg bench overrides my request cooldown
MSmits: requestCooldown: 80
MSmits: it does 30
MSmits: and then hits the limit
MSmits: it will then double the 30 and keep doubling it until it no longer hits the limit. I prefer to just set a value that never hits it
jrke: MSmits thanks for pushing me 3rd in D&B lol
MSmits: yeah, you know how i do that?
MSmits: I have a mcts for early game
MSmits: and I can make it create a ton of loops and short chains if i want to
MSmits: in that case, it doesnt help to be in control in the late game
MSmits: your bot is better than other bots at playing out the late game
MSmits: you get wins vs me
MSmits: I did some testing and i get around 50% wr vs mikla with this
MSmits: unfortunately a bunch of losses vs lower ranked, like you
MSmits: you'll see the games you won are all narrow score wins
MSmits: score solver paying off in the end eh?
jrke: my current submitted bot is having end game solver which is bugged intensionally to make it work under 100ms
jrke: and the non-bugged solver is ready but it takes 100ms+ in many games
jrke: so can't submit it
MSmits: I know your pain. Spent a lot of time speeding up mine
MSmits: it's hard
MSmits: btw i recommend you also do the mcts thing
jrke: i in my solver i only evaluate heuristically in which only closed chains are there
MSmits: it's really easy, just do a basic mcts and your eval just has to make an educated guess about how "loopy shortchainy" it is
jrke: i think adding looped chains in that can optimize it a bit
MSmits: oh right
MSmits: do you need the function i shared with Marchete
jrke: which one?
MSmits: http://chat.codingame.com/pastebin/3536899d-1ad3-4f09-9e70-e9ab1aa0699f
MSmits: ControlledValue(int b, int l4, int ll, int c3, int cl)
MSmits: b is boxes left, l4 is loop4count, c3 is chain3count, cl is number of long chains
MSmits: assuming all are isolated
MSmits: so no fancy 3 joins and 4 joins
MSmits: this is an exact solution coming from scientific research
MSmits: and extremely fast
MSmits: oh and ll is long loops
MSmits: (6+
MSmits: the end result is the board value
struct: o.o
jrke: thenks
MSmits: dont try to understand it really, just test it
MSmits: make sure you handle short chains (1 and 2 long)
MSmits: and also chains that have been opened already
MSmits: once those are gone, you can use the formula
MSmits: I kinda understood it when i coded it, but have no clue now
jrke: int GetValueRecursive(int b, int l4, int ll, int c3, int cl)
jrke: what does this do?
MSmits: thats the function you call
MSmits: it calculates the value of the board
MSmits: pass it the boxcount left on the board
MSmits: and the loop4count
MSmits: looplongcount (6+)
MSmits: chain3count
MSmits: and chainlongcount(4+)
MSmits: it's recursive in the sense that it calls itself multiple times in case of 4 loops
MSmits: removing loops each time
jrke: does l4 consist all loops count or just loops of 4 boxes?
MSmits: loops of 4 boxes
MSmits: they are special
MSmits: chains of 3 also
MSmits: btw tb = terminal bonus, it's the bonus you get from capturing the last object
MSmits: because you dont need to give up boxes in that one
MSmits: 4 loops have a tb of 8
MSmits: normall you give away 4 boxes, but on the last one you gain 4
MSmits: 4 -- 4 = 8
jrke: hmm
MSmits: I dont mind giving you the paper this all comes from but it's one of the worst you'll have ever read
MSmits: not because it's wrong, but because it's textwalls with math sprinkled
jrke: my current heuristic eval is here
jrke: http://chat.codingame.com/pastebin/c165b37e-ef23-4ebd-af91-bbb528491e13
MSmits: yeah that will have similar speed, but will be wrong some of the time
jrke: but i looped handler is incomplete
jrke: else {
}
MSmits: oh right
MSmits: well thats where the complexity is
MSmits: if you have only chains you can just always play the shortest one
MSmits: if you also have loops,then sometimes it's better to play a 4 loop first, sometimes a 3 chain
jrke: yeah
MSmits: btw
jrke: btw i calculated how many unique states can be in dots and boxes
MSmits: if you just have loops you can also just always play 1 and 2 chains before loops
jrke: ohk
MSmits: around 6000 if you have simple loony endgames right?
MSmits: i created lookup tables for this
MSmits: and i needed 6000 sized array
MSmits: but my lookup table was slower
jrke: no i am talking every state of game from turn 0 to turn 112
MSmits: oh I see
jrke: 2^112 if i am not wrong
jrke: cause we can define each state under 112 bits
MSmits: hmm well yes thats the first order calculation
jrke: and all combinations will be 2^112
MSmits: but you dont include symmetry in that
MSmits: 2^3 ways to rotate and mirror
MSmits: so that'll make it 2^109
jrke: yes no symmetry in that
jrke: ohk
MSmits: also the corners have a little bit of symmetry
MSmits: but that's mostly negligible
MSmits: the game is mostly simplified by it's graph-nature
MSmits: once you have isolated chains it doesnt matter where they are
jrke: yeah
jrke: just play smaller ones
MSmits: also even with complex objects, you can do all sorts of rotations and twisting and it will stay the same object
MSmits: so many D&B maps are equivalents
MSmits: but in your case, if you dont like using that function i just gave you, you can also generate all possible states and use a lookup table
MSmits: generate them all locally
MSmits: you'll have 6k values
MSmits: compress them and put them in your bot
MSmits: then in the first second, generate the states, but dont solve them
MSmits: instead add the hardcoded value to those states in a lookup table
jrke: i will only hardcode when i failed to make solver working under 100ms after trying too many things
MSmits: well you cant hardcode complex stuff so this is just to replace that function
jrke: how you handle loops bigger than 4?
MSmits: 6 loops are "somewhat" special, but only in the presence of complex objects
jrke: btw loops have only even numbered boxes right?
MSmits: anything bigger can just be ignored until the final solve of a simple state
MSmits: jrke yes in D&B they do
MSmits: I also ignore all chains 4 and up
MSmits: during solve
MSmits: except in the final use of that function
jrke: maybe one reason of slow speed of my solver could be this
jrke: int map[7][7][4]
MSmits: sure
jrke: i am using 7*7*4 array for game state
MSmits: I generate a graph from my map
MSmits: so i am no longer placing edges during solve
MSmits: i am playing whole loops and chains and such
MSmits: http://chat.codingame.com/pastebin/81370377-47e5-435f-8c24-6994b84db3a4
struct: (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
struct: how can a 1 line eval have like 40% win rate vs my current bot
struct: ....
MSmits: yes that's very disturbing
MSmits: I also dont know how to eval breakthrough
struct: I dont know how to eval.
struct: Doesnt matter which game
MSmits: eval in general is just, identify features, give them a parameter, fit the parameters
MSmits: identifying features is the only hard part
MSmits: the rest is boring and time consuming
jrke: i went at wrong path for evaluating func in spring 2021 during contest
MSmits: i succeeded at it in some games, most notably oware
MSmits: until everyone and their mom beat me using NN
dbdr: you handcrafted an oware eval?
MSmits: yes
MSmits: far better than the rest
snacker_X: print("hello world")
struct: dbdr you eval breakthrough?
jrke: what depth you go in oware MS?
dbdr: honestly I don't remember how I eval bt
MSmits: no idea, it depends on the state of the game, probably 20 or so
MSmits: it's mcts with ept
struct: But you do eval right?
dbdr: I guess
dbdr: sorry, it's in swap right now
struct: swap?
dbdr: https://i.snipboard.io/tdAIlP.jpg
what is my snake doing, avoiding the good?
dbdr: swap out of my brain-RAM
dbdr: the *food
dbdr: the good food
struct: maybe Illedan should change the head of the snake
dbdr: yeah, I requested that too :)
dbdr: :snake:
dbdr: https://www.codingame.com/contribute/view/7158e51466a40b049897dd44c641191a2119
dbdr: oh, I think I know!
dbdr: yeah, finishing levels again now :)
MSmits: is this one of those GA/SA games?
dbdr: we don't know yet :)
jrke: Hamiltonian cycle is easiest way to solve snake game until and unless you don't have turn boundation
MSmits: I dont think it's supposed to be solvable
MSmits: so you need some optimization algorithm
billalxcode: verse mode
MSmits: it's like the travelling salesman problem
MSmits: quickly grows in complexity with the number of food thingies
MSmits: I suppose you can solve a few simpler cases exactly using that hamiltonian thingy and then use them as a benchmark for your optimization
dbdr: solved as in: found a way to visit all cities
MSmits: no i mean maximum score
dbdr: not found the probable optimal one
dbdr: I know
MSmits: with TSP anything < 20 is possible to solve exactly I think
MSmits: not sure where the exact limit is
dbdr: when jrke says solved, he does not mean optimally
MSmits: It's (N-1)! / 2 I think
MSmits: ohh
MSmits: did not get that
jrke: yeah i didn't meant optimal
MSmits: soo I know how i can get to nr 1 in D&B now
struct: o.o
MSmits: I just spam a 51% wr bot forever and pull down mila
MSmits: mikla
dbdr: lol
MSmits: and then lose the nr 1 as soon as 1 person resubmits
MSmits: because my bot loses vs lower ranked, the way i made it now
dbdr: sounds like a plan
jrke: and push me up till you push down mikla lol
MSmits: hehe yea
dbdr: good use of resources
MSmits: i am doing that jrke
MSmits: probably i should just improve my solver so i dont get so many lower ranked losses and get a bit more wins vs mikla as well
MSmits: my scoresolver currently starts at endgame, but the simple endgames take like 5 microseconds to solve
jrke: wht thats great 5ms
MSmits: so plenty of time left to bring the frame of solving earlier
MSmits: yeah
MSmits: on average it's 80 microseconds
MSmits: oh wait no
MSmits: thats nim solving
MSmits: hmm score solving was 1 millisecond average
MSmits: no, 300 micro
jrke: :scream:
MSmits: but the simpler ones are faster than average
MSmits: and the whole idea is to make the board simple and losing for mikla
jrke: my solver breaks 100ms when there are more than 15 chains lol
MSmits: the number of chains is irrelevant for me, just the number of 4 and 3 degree joins matters
jrke: i have minimax thingy for solver
MSmits: some of them are crazy complicated. I found one with 12 joins that took the full 100 ms
MSmits: yeah mine uses negamax, which is basically minimax
MSmits: https://www.codingame.com/replay/572083224 frame 61, this took 111 microseconds to solve
jrke: my internet is working like snail
jrke: very slow
MSmits: ye, looking at the games on the leaderboard 100 micro is average for solving time when no safe moves are left
MSmits: but this is with my loopy mcts that creates simple endgames
jrke: nice
MSmits: yeah so what i was thinking about doing is extending this to before the endgame
MSmits: with another negamax that runs the solver at endgame
jrke: i am very much interesed to know what does crazy remi prints in message
MSmits: problem is you need sacrifice moves and pre-emptive sacrifices as well
MSmits: me too, i have no idea
MSmits: his bot is very weird
MSmits: i suspect he uses some sort of mcts with nim-components
MSmits: without a nimsolver, his bot crushes you, so he does have some nim in there
jrke: it looks like time taken in seconds
MSmits: hard to say
MSmits: ahh gotta go, visitors today
MSmits: ttyl
jrke: ohk
jacek: whats with that utf16
reCurse: I'm starting to wonder if I should have used randomized openings for chess instead of 960
struct: unbalanced starts?
struct: I mean unbalanced on 960
reCurse: No
struct: What is the problem?
reCurse: No problem per se
reCurse: Doing most of my testing with random chess engines and most of them just do classic chess
reCurse: So I use random openings and it's working pretty well
reCurse: And it's easier to watch
reCurse: shrug
reCurse: Pretty satisfying to defeat minimax engines with positional play
jacek: random openings, but castling as in classic chess?
reCurse: It's exactly the same as classic chess except forced openings from a book like they do in most competitions
struct: im probably done with bt, its impossible to bench atm
struct: I was not aware it was this bad since I never used cg bench
MSmits: I get to 48 games and then it stops, I think authentication fails
Marchete: on CGBenchmark?
MSmits: yeah
Marchete: hard limits
Marchete: they are very limited now
MSmits: not just that
Marchete: like unusable even with IDE tests
MSmits: it also logs me out or something
MSmits: so even with 1 min time
MSmits: at some point it says i am not the right codingamer
MSmits: usually after half an hour or so
struct: I can run brutaltester, but I just end up creating a version that can only beat my bot
struct: unless I test vs multiple versions of my bots
MSmits: struct what helps a little bit is adding randomness to your moves
MSmits: so when making the move, add % randomness to the value of each move
Marchete: brutaltester is the "my mom says I'm the best basketball player"
Marchete: version
Marchete: just like NN sometimes
MSmits: yes, fitting params is like that
MSmits: you can use tricks to reduce overfitting outside of NN's also
MSmits: well I guess CG bench is not completely useless. I can run it maybe 4 separate times and add up the result for 200 games or so. Then I can at least tell if a bot is obviously better or not. If they're close, it's not enough
struct: but you are only testing vs 1 player
struct: on bt that is not enough
MSmits: in my case that is fine
struct: yeah
MSmits: I also have a lot of testing tools for D&B outside of cg bench though, so it's easy for me to see if i improved
MSmits: i just dont know if its better than mikla
MSmits: unless i cg bench
MSmits: my current leaderboard version is 50% WR btw, as far as you can tell with a near even 100-100 score
MSmits: but it sacrifices a lot vs lower ranked. So my next goal is fixing that
MSmits: this is typical: http://cgstats.magusgeek.com/app/multi-dots-and-boxes/MSmits
MSmits: all green, but well... I am not supposed to lose any games below mikla
struct: I would try chess, but if I struggle with bt eval I cant imagine how I would do in chess :D
MSmits: well
MSmits: plenty of features to choose from
MSmits: also more literature
MSmits: but fitting params is a huge problem
MSmits: you need to learn how to do that
MSmits: automatically, not by hand
struct: I probably need to upgrade my cpu
struct: if i want to do that
MSmits: nah
MSmits: sure, it helps
MSmits: but you can also just wait twice as long
Marchete: if WR >50 just spam submit :D
MSmits: or do it less often
MSmits: Marchete i could get >50 but i want to make it so that i get 100% below me
struct: https://i.imgur.com/XPxrlIN.png
MSmits: like it was before
struct: I cant test on ide though anymore
struct: due to cd
MSmits: it's literally 1 minus sign between this and being 100%
struct: cooldown*
MSmits: but then my mikla wr becomes 40%
Marchete: yeah sometimes I can beat you on my broken bot :D
MSmits: thats the sort of loss that should not happen
MSmits: but there's a difference with your bot
MSmits: you get loopy maps even if i am not trying for them
MSmits: so your bot does something
Marchete: I think it's that
Marchete: my bot tries something
Marchete: and by chance it gets the right point to win
Marchete: like it's still too much randomness
MSmits: could be
Marchete: to say you domain the game
Marchete: https://www.codingame.com/share-replay/572123960
MSmits: but i did discover that it's possible to force loopyness. If everyone did that, it would kill miklas bot
Marchete: at first match I tried
Marchete: so you have room to improve
Marchete: or maybe it's just 1st player having advantage
MSmits: nah not really
MSmits: i gave away 2 boxes btw
MSmits: because my bot wants to have control
MSmits: thats why i lose
MSmits: control is pointless with loopy maps
MSmits: I should just detect this and stop sacrificing
MSmits: https://www.codingame.com/replay/572086105
MSmits: here i beat mikla like you beat me
MSmits: let him have control by sacrificing boxes, then win by score
MSmits: dunno why my happy and sad face emote got broken btw
Marchete: hmm I thought it was due to the position, but I can win you also as blue player
MSmits: yeah that doesnt matter
MSmits: the game has too much branching to make use of any p1 or p2 advantage
MSmits: and it's impartial
MSmits: you both use the same board
MSmits: the only difference is who's turn it is
Marchete: 5x5 is proven win for p1
MSmits: sure but this is meaningless if it's not solved
Marchete: at some point in time it had "too much branching"
MSmits: 7x7 is also a win for either player
MSmits: one of them i mean
MSmits: there is an enormous difference between 5x5 and 7x7
MSmits: like checkers and chess
MSmits: 5x5 was not at all easy to solve
MSmits: mostly because nim stuff is useless for this kind of solving
MSmits: score solving uses plain old negamax
MSmits: there's a table somewhere that showed the difference in time required for 4x5 compared to 5x5
MSmits: it was like 1000 times or something ridiculous like that
struct: ok maybe this version is better
struct: now I need to wait for cooldown
jacek: you cant submit on cooldown?
MSmits: and then you use your ultimate?
struct: I wont submit I dont want to lose my top 10 :(
struct: only if im 100% sure that its better
struct: It does play different
struct: https://www.codingame.com/replay/572123264
struct: https://www.codingame.com/replay/571612845
struct: 2nd is old bot
MSmits: i just love we brought you over to the dark side of board-game botting :)
struct: I only learned bitboards due to spring contest
MSmits: you picked it up fast
struct: I knew the basic like set and clear bits
struct: but that was about it
MSmits: thats how it starts
MSmits: you will also go through a phase where you are bitboarding everything, even when it doesnt help at all
MSmits: or maybe thats just me
struct: if its easier sure
MSmits: earlier I was trying to calculate mex, by setting bits on a bitboard and then using builtin ctzl to get the lowest bit
struct: mex?
MSmits: but turns out just filling an array and looping to the lowest unset array item was faster
MSmits: minimum excluded value
MSmits: so i started with a full set bitboard
MSmits: and unset bit
MSmits: when i found values
MSmits: then took the minimum set bit with ctzl
MSmits: but just having an array with 16 values and setting the items was faster
MSmits: because to modify the bitboard i needed |= 1uLL << s
MSmits: and thats slower
MSmits: slower than just setting an item in a 16 sized array
MSmits: this is what i meant with unnecessarily bitboarding everything
reCurse: That seems incredibly specific advice on micro-optimizations heavily dependent on the context they're used in
MSmits: yes, the point was really, not to jump to bitboards at every occasion
MSmits: not this specific example
MSmits: I also did a bitboarded floodfill for tron
MSmits: which was slower I think
MSmits: maybe a did it wrong, not sure
MSmits: I
reCurse: Probably did it wrong I'd say
reCurse: Bitboards are very good at that
MSmits: well maybe, the idea was to floodfill in parallel, but it works poorly on long corridors
NVT_Nguyen: gg
MSmits: i did use it on D&B succesfully, but the bitboard is just a single uint64_t
MSmits: for tron i needed like 29 ints
MSmits: that complicates things
MSmits: if you're just floodfilling along 1 corridor on 2 ints and you have to check if your map changed to see if you're done floodfilling, you need to check the whole board
MSmits: because you dont actually know it's just a corridor
reCurse: I maintain my guess :P
MSmits: fair enough :)
reCurse: Speaking of benching I was afraid this would happen since the public release of CGBench, still took 2 years eh
MSmits: yeah
MSmits: it always surprised me they just let us do it
MSmits: just a bit worried they might limit submits next
MSmits: as you mentioned
MSmits: well you mentioned that people submit more
reCurse: During contest yeah
MSmits: probably also outside contest
reCurse: That's the thing the site is dead outside contests
reCurse: That's why it upset me quite when they made the limit permanent
MSmits: relatively speaking sure
MSmits: well contests arent happening all the time
MSmits: there might be more activity outside contest
MSmits: but it's spread out
MSmits: over a long period of time
MSmits: if you limit it there too, you migth save a bunch of $$ in the long term as well
MSmits: just have to be honest about it
reCurse: I still think we talk about thousands of times
MSmits: I remember a time where I personally CG benched 10k games in a week and that was just me alone
MSmits: outside of contest
MSmits: in contest i benched less
reCurse: That's nothing in the grand scheme
MSmits: nothing if it's just me
MSmits: we dont really have the numbers, so we can only guess
MSmits: i just accept the new reality. The new normal is testing locally
reCurse: The new normal is to leave CG lol
MSmits: not me :)
MSmits: anyways gotta go get some food, ttyl
reCurse: bye
**jacek never used cgbench
jacek: im so ecological
Youssef_kessentini: f word
jacek: fail
antiwonto: fortran
Marchete: F#
antiwonto: Furby
antiwonto: Furry
Youssef_kessentini: female?
Youssef_kessentini: ferrari?
antiwonto: ban
Marchete: Press F to pay respects
Youssef_kessentini: k
TobiasA: F
Wontonimo: i'm with ya MSmits, i've taken up residence here
jacek: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/718853716266188890/868893418737246228/Elo.png
jacek: oh my, +350 elo in a year
struct: it did not look like 350 in this site
struct: https://m.nextchessmove.com/dev-builds/
jacek: different time control maybe
struct: ah probably
jacek: plus this is test against last classical sf, which was sf11
struct: that one is against sf7
NinjaDoggy: 10 seconds + 0.1 time control ._.
NinjaDoggy: wtf is that
struct: ultra bullet
NinjaDoggy: not sure how meaningful 350 elo at ultra bullet is :/
jacek: also, could be different openings
reCurse: Why wouldn't it be meaningful
reCurse: Are you saying CG bots aren't meaningful? lol
sprkrd: 10 sec + 0.1 is plenty for a computer
sprkrd: most CG games have 100 ms per turn
reCurse: Anyway I'd rather use CCRL as a reference since they play against various different engines
darkhorse64: CG is 1s + 0.05 right ,
darkhorse64: ?
reCurse: Not really
reCurse: There's no timebank on CG
NinjaDoggy: but no official/ranked games are played at 10 + 0.1 so saying "350 elo increase over sf11"
is pretty misleading
NinjaDoggy: at longer time control the elo gain is much smaller
reCurse: I don't get it
sprkrd: I don't understand your point
reCurse: Elo is always in a frame of reference
reCurse: By itself it never means anything
reCurse: Just like I could say self-play elo is meaningless
reCurse: Doesn't mean it is
NinjaDoggy: my point is if someone says "SF14 is 350 elo stronger than SF11"
most people would think that's it's 350 elo higher in normal time controls for competitive games
NinjaDoggy: not 350 elo stronger at ultra bullet 10 + 0.1
reCurse: I disagree since what is the normal time control? TCEC? CCRL? CCRL Blitz?
reCurse: On what hardware?
sprkrd: why would be elo be something particular for "competitive human time controls"? It's not even specific to chess
sprkrd: point is, computer has a budget of 10s to make its move (let's forget about the increment for now), it can manage its budget anyway it wants. Under those circumstances, there's a 350 elo difference between approach A and approach B
reCurse: It's exactly like saying your new version has 90% winrate vs the old one
reCurse: What it actually means depends on the context
struct: If I check the win rate with "random" openings will it be more accurate to check bot strength?
NinjaDoggy: yes but, if you just say
"SF14 is 350 elo stronger than SF11"
most people agree SF11 is around 3400-3500 in most time controls used in competitions
but SF14 is not 3750+
reCurse: It actually is
reCurse: http://ccrl.chessdom.com/ccrl/404/
jacek: busted
jacek: what is fat fritz doing there :s
reCurse: They decide not to dive in politics
reCurse: Something like that
reCurse: shrug
reCurse: Also the fact the statement says "vs SF11" implies to me self-play which means the measure is in no way usable in regular tables
reCurse: Because otherwise they'd have to say what is the reference pool used
NinjaDoggy: I mean... that's my point
that you shouldn't expect to find in any of these tables stockfish 14 being 350 elo higher than stockfish 11
reCurse: I don't think anyone is
reCurse: That's why I don't get the misleading claim, the statement is actually accurate
NinjaDoggy: yes so saying "350 elo higher" is kind of misleading and imo "not meaningful"
NinjaDoggy: ok i guess misleading is too far, but not meaningful
reCurse: If someone says "the new version has 90% winrate vs the previous one" is that misleading?
reCurse: Because elo == winrat
reCurse: e
NinjaDoggy: yea nvm, not misleading just not meaningful :)
reCurse: Sure, though if you look in the tables the jump between 11 and 14 is still very meaningful
reCurse: Whether it's 100 or 300 elo isn't that big of a deal
reCurse: It's an exponential metric
NinjaDoggy: not disagreeing the jump is crazy
NinjaDoggy: but the claim of "350 elo over sf11" is not meaningful imo that's all
reCurse: Also FWIW my chess bot self-play elo sort of matches CCRL elo as well
reCurse: So it has value
struct: chessbase might need a bot
reCurse: And personally I find there's a lot more value on a chess bot that plays well with less resources than more
reCurse: But to each his/her/its own
NinjaDoggy: I agree with like all of your points, http://chat.codingame.com/pastebin/59f0e64a-ee89-4a72-8289-b92dfbb14632
NinjaDoggy: oops codingame doesn't like essays ._.
reCurse: I wouldn't fault them for making that statement since it's actually correct and doesn't lead more credence to a format or a competition more than another /srhug
reCurse: If we have to worry about how everyone can interpret a statement we're actually doing PR work for free
reCurse: And then you have corpospeak
reCurse: No one likes that
reCurse: Haven't they historically always said the elo improvement in self-play for like all their releases?
sprkrd: actually I somewhat agree with NinjaDoggy. I don't like corpospeak either, but saying "SF14 has a 90% win rate against SF11" is not corpospeak and is both clearer and scientifically accurate
reCurse: ??
reCurse: Elo is the exact same thing as winrate
reCurse: It's just exponential instead of linear
reCurse: I think you attribute way more to "elo" than it actually means
reCurse: It's just a unit
sprkrd: But for elo you need a pool of players
reCurse: No you don't
reCurse: You can have elo with just A vs B
sprkrd: elo when there are two players is just... complicating things unnecessarily
reCurse: No again
reCurse: The exponential measure has more value than the linear one
sprkrd: when you have two players you can report wr be much more straight to the point
reCurse: Tons of people measure improvement in elo over winrate
reCurse: I actually found it to be a much better unit after giving it a try
reCurse: In fact I'd say most release notes I've seen express elo improvement by self-play, otherwise they specifically mention +50 elo in CCRL or whatever
reCurse: If you need it to be more palatable
reCurse: 80 vs 90 winrate doesn't seem like much but it's actually huge
reCurse: The elo unit correctly shows that
sprkrd: i don't know... I think if I had to report a figure in a paper and there are only two contestants, WR is much more straightforward. Elo is good when you have several players, you assign an elo to each one and then you can estimate the win rate between any two players taking the difference and then the exponential (using the appropriate normalizing factors and all that)
sprkrd: if there are only two players, I don't see why elo would be a more intuitive figure
reCurse: It's less approchable but more useful
sprkrd: so at first I was with you, now I changed my mind, sorry :cry:
reCurse: A winrate delta is useless without the winrate basis
reCurse: A elo delta is always useful
reCurse: Because 50 vs 55 doesn't tell nearly the same story as 90 vs 95
sprkrd: I'm talking merely from an outreach point of view. I understand that, as you say, elo would be more useful in your technical work depending on what you're doing. But for communicating scientific findings, maybe WR is clearer?
sprkrd: Like, if I say SF14 wins against SF11 90% of the time, wouldn't that be somewhat clearer than saying it has +350 elo points?
reCurse: You took the original debate and completely changed it to another one
reCurse: But I think the chess community at large is much more used with elo as measurement so I disagree
MSmits: Marchete I submitted my non-loopy version again
sprkrd: I'm sorry if I shifted the debate, I was under the impression that I was making a valid remark, but I don't want to press further, it's not something I care all that much anyway.
reCurse: No worries I was just saying
reCurse: Also don't mind me I'm just a cranky jerk :P
MSmits: I'm a :poodle:
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: o.O
sprkrd: I'm a bit of a cranky jerk too. I'm pretending here, but I actually went to my boxing bag and hit it with all my might imagining it was you :eyes:
struct: got a lucky submit I guess
reCurse: Wow ok
sprkrd: (just kidding :joy:)
sprkrd: (or not :eyes:)
struct: I cant beat pamplemus though
struct: and any NN :/
MSmits: wreck those NN
KiwiTae: sprkrd its not possible we are all nerds nobody doing sports here hehe
struct: MSmits only possible with a NN im afraid
reCurse: I guess I'm what they call a people person
MSmits: hey, i sit on my hometrainer cycle watching netflix a lot
MSmits: like a pro
KiwiTae: MSmits you are on ZWIFT?
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: MSmits is what we call an "athlete"
MSmits: is that a machine?
Astrobytes: Do you also actually cycle or just sit there?
MSmits: lol Astrobytes
MSmits: no i actually cycle
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: XD
KiwiTae: its for virtual rides you can use it with a hometrainer
MSmits: oh, nah
MSmits: i just watch some shows i would normally not spend time watching but want to know what happens anyway
MSmits: to clear my netflix queue
reCurse: Funny I just stop watching instead
reCurse: :P
sprkrd: KiwiTae I wish I could contradict you (regarding the sports bit), but it's been a while I have not done any sport due to a knee injury :(
MSmits: you are a more logical person
sprkrd: since I've done any sport*
KiwiTae: sprkrd I am recovering from double surgery i got your feelin~
MSmits: not sure what knee injury you have sprkrd, but mine got better from the cycling
MSmits: something to do with strengthening muscles i guess
sprkrd: I actually can do several sports, including cycling, but I had to stop doing judo. Judo was my jam
reCurse: Intimidation attempt spotted
MSmits: ahh yeah judo is hard on your body
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: Wait I just realized I made a stupid mistake in my CSB code-
Astrobytes: lol
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: math.atan2 returns radians
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: not degrees
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: :?
MSmits: i started judo at 2 in diapers, stopped when I was 11
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: :/
sprkrd: reCurse :eyes:
MSmits: my first real match,i broke my collarbone
MSmits: was also my last
sprkrd: D:
KiwiTae: :joy:
KiwiTae: ush
Astrobytes: MSmits: I see the scores are evening out on D&B, near identical winrates?
MSmits: Astrobytes, i got 2 versions now
Astrobytes: :rofl: Judo defo not your bag lol
MSmits: 1 is 50% mikla, 75% vs top 5
MSmits: 1 is 40% mikla, 100% vs rest
MSmits: the one up now is the second
Astrobytes: that's the current one
Astrobytes: yeah
reCurse: The way my bot uses its king in the front lines gives me a heart attack sometimes
MSmits: well kings are harder to mate when they have a lot of room to move :P
Astrobytes: lol, likes to play edgy moves eh
sprkrd: how can you expect your subjects to follow if your king doesn't lead?
reCurse: Surrounded by 2 bishops and a knight but no problem I'll just walk over there
reCurse: *enemy
Astrobytes: hehehe
sprkrd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYLeoN7ovnk
MSmits: Astrobytes my hope is to improve version 1 with a better score solver, so i will get top 5 back to near 100% and get mikla slightly above 50%
Marchete: MSmits :D
Astrobytes: Your score solver is still the negamax?
Marchete: I'm "just" 8pts below
MSmits: yes Astrobytes
MSmits: but it only starts at endgame
MSmits: and uses about 0,1 ms
MSmits: no reason to not start solving sooner
Astrobytes: I was about to recommend that
MSmits: but it's a bit complicated to code due to sacrifices and such, what to prove and what not
MSmits: prune i mean
MSmits: not prove
Astrobytes: Seems worth the extra effort
MSmits: oh, btw, there is another thing i can do to get nr 1
Astrobytes: spam
MSmits: first push up top 5 and pull down mikla with version 1
NinjaDoggy: LOL
MSmits: then do version 2, wreck everyone but mikla and become nr 1
Marchete: ezpz
NinjaDoggy: play the leaderboard ;)
Marchete: I can spam submit too
MSmits: yeah, i am relatively safe from that right now, you will hurt mikla more than me
Astrobytes: that's a wanky move though, and temporary
MSmits: yeah i would not
Marchete: 50% winrate him, 0% you
MSmits: it's because my current bot does the opposite of loopy mcts
MSmits: so it counteracts your loopyness
Marchete: :rage:
MSmits: so i win on nim
Marchete: that's my unhappy face
Marchete: I had some 35-40% winrate vs you
MSmits: yeah thats with loopy
MSmits: nim becomes useless then
Astrobytes: loopy?
MSmits: lots of little 4 loops
Marchete: lol no
MSmits: and other simple objects
Marchete: I'm timeouting
Marchete: :D
Astrobytes: Ah right
struct: msmits just make a donation to marchet paypal
struct: then you get pushed
MSmits: hehe
Marchete: yeah
Marchete: at the cost of 1 paper
MSmits: ohh
Astrobytes: :rofl:
MSmits: i notice i still get loops vs toy
MSmits: you
MSmits: so the counteracting is not working very well
MSmits: why are you timeouting
MSmits: i mean, you got to rank 3 with this bot
Marchete: I'm timeouting a lot
MSmits: yeah but why specifically against me
Marchete: I think it's from graphs
MSmits: if you time out this much in general
Marchete: timeout?
Marchete: no no
MSmits: you would not be rank 3
Marchete: it's with everybody
MSmits: but more with me
Marchete: it must be the structures
Marchete: that overlaps and pointers got wrong
Marchete: i have structs with unions
MSmits: so you do nothing with nim right?
MSmits: you basically bet everything on score solving
MSmits: ?
MSmits: which is a good bet btw, if you can force maps like this
Marchete: I try to force
MSmits: I migth need to let go of nim, or at least get rid of the sacrifice moves
Astrobytes: add nimsolver = #1
MSmits: not vs a bot like marchetes
Astrobytes: I meant Marchete
MSmits: if he improves it, he may wreck mikla
Marchete: I think nim is useful
MSmits: yeah but sacrificing costs you the game if you only rely on nim and your opponent forces loopy boards
Marchete: it depends when
MSmits: and nim requires sacrifice often
Astrobytes: Not rely on nim, a two-pronged approach
Astrobytes: *only on nim
MSmits: what you can do is detect whether nim is a good approach
MSmits: for example, if there are already a few long chains
Astrobytes: Yes, otherwise fall back
MSmits: did i mention my bot is already 3.6k lines
Astrobytes: Yes
Marchete: but it seems to me that we are always ending with 23-26, you winning
Marchete: you always do base?
MSmits: thats because when you are in control you still do have an advantage when solving
Marchete: down line?
Marchete: at start
MSmits: what do you mean base
Marchete: bottom 1
MSmits: oh that
MSmits: mikla is the reason for that
MSmits: it's like this
Marchete: ??
MSmits: when i cant nimsolve
MSmits: i dont want to simplify the board for him
MSmits: so i take the least splitting move
MSmits: so as not to divide and conquer for him
MSmits: and that happens to end up being on an edge, usually the bottom
Marchete: ahh
MSmits: then he probably wont solve either
MSmits: and if he plays a splitting move, i might be able to solve instead
MSmits: thats the idea anyway, doesnt often work
MSmits: but who cares, random line, or bottom
MSmits: i guess i can be counterbooked now :)
Marchete: I don't think so
MSmits: though, the mcts still has random
Marchete: I just do randoms
MSmits: so it's doubtful
MSmits: ohh
MSmits: i was wrong, no this is my mcts doing this
MSmits: i think it thinks chains will be longer with a long line at the bottom
MSmits: or something
MSmits: what a weird bot
MSmits: your bot isnt having it though, it just builds loops out of it :)
Marchete: I try to do loops :D
MSmits: mine isnt exactly doing loops. It just tries to minimize the controlled value. I actually eval using floodfills and a graph
MSmits: well when i do the loopy version
MSmits: it's part of my score solver
MSmits: i just copied it into my mcts eval
Marchete: but you too are too high in scores...
MSmits: what do you mean
Marchete: +8pts
MSmits: the rating?
MSmits: or in a game?
Marchete: leaderboards
MSmits: ahh, well i win on nim vs almost everyone
MSmits: and when nim doesnt work, the score solver is pretty good
MSmits: just a little sad mikla out-nims me somehow
MSmits: so we all need to make this a score solver meta :)
Marchete: this game is like playing mind games vs the enemy :D
MSmits: yeah, I like it because you can kinda recognize the strategy if you watch a lot of games
MSmits: thats not true for every board game here
reCurse: Less a game and more a math problem IMO
MSmits: reCurse true, when the meta is nim solving
MSmits: but with score solving, it becomes partially, good old negamax
MSmits: (still need some math)
jacek: nice jump in rank struct
struct: thanks, but I think I was a bit lucky
struct: still NNs feel unbeatable with a normal bot
MSmits: mostly they are yeah
MSmits: you can still have some pride when being the best non-NN bot
MSmits: who is this in BT?
struct: who?
struct: pamplemus?
MSmits: possibly
MSmits: it could also just be you
struct: ah yes its him
JudgeAL: https://www.codingame.com/contribute/view/7159dfaa5250f2e4cac253d0aeee2407519d
jacek: only you can stop the fire
struct: I didnt get your question at first :p
MSmits: ahh ok
JudgeAL: one more approval plz
JudgeAL: only if u think its good ofc
Astrobytes: Patience is a virtue;
NinjaDoggy: wait why does pamplemus's strat look so simple ._.
struct: because it is
NinjaDoggy: just push everyone together until you solve for a win
MSmits: lol
struct: I feel like it is that
MSmits: yeah that looks really simple
MSmits: I could copy that
NinjaDoggy: and it's beating every non-NN bot ._.
MSmits: kinda shows you how hard it is to write a good eval for this game
MSmits: if a simple heuristic start can beat everyone elses
JudgeAL: which game are we talkin about here?
NinjaDoggy: breakthrough
MSmits: https://www.codingame.com/multiplayer/bot-programming/breakthrough/leaderboard
JudgeAL: :thumbsup:
MSmits: though, it is of course completely possible this weird march in formation comes from a search and his eval just makes that happen
MSmits: might not be hardcoded
JudgeAL: hmmm, is this game solved?
struct: I think he prunes the moves to do thi
MSmits: not this size
struct: this*
NinjaDoggy: not solved but if you watch recurse replays it might look like it is ;)
MSmits: 6x6 might be solved though
MSmits: not sure where the limit is
JudgeAL: ahh I see
MSmits: we also have a connect-4 that isnt solved
MSmits: up to 8x8 is solved, but we have 9x7
struct: we also have yavalath which is solved
MSmits: i solved it for non-pie rule :P
JudgeAL: dang
NinjaDoggy: oh connect four is larger :/
JudgeAL: alright imma try to solve breakthrough
sprkrd: MSmits connect-4 is also solved for (2n)x7, I believe
NinjaDoggy: i was wondering why people weren't trying to play center LOL
struct: NinjaDoggy still fits in 64 bits
MSmits: sprkrd you mean by mathematical proof?
reCurse: Ugly multiplications though
sprkrd: yes, mathematical proof
MSmits: oh thats cool, I did not know that
sprkrd: maybe I got the dimensions wrong, but there was some general case (2n)x7, 7x(2n) or something like that that was solved in general
JudgeAL: I feel like breakthrough should be solvable
MSmits: NinjaDoggy the reason they dont play center is mostly because of pie rule
NinjaDoggy: sorry pie rule?
jacek: or streal rule
NinjaDoggy: oh :O
MSmits: player 2 gets to steal player 1's move
jacek: s/r//
MSmits: so they play a balanced move, hopefully solved as draw
MSmits: which is second from the left or right
NinjaDoggy: ahhh makes sense, thanks
MSmits: best move without pie rule is not center btw
MSmits: it's left or right of center
JudgeAL: oh what...
NinjaDoggy: that's a really nice way to balance the game :)
JudgeAL: lol never thought Id be listening to connect4 opening theory
MSmits: it's the easiest way, assuming a balanced start exists
reCurse: It's lazy game design :P
jacek: we have also memes for connect 4
MSmits: well the demands put on a game to make it balanced without rules like this are quite hard
MSmits: for bot play anyways
MSmits: humans dont really care unless they play professionally high level
NinjaDoggy: it also preserves the original connect 4 gameplay
MSmits: pie rule is actually used in c4 afaik
reCurse: Or swap sides~
reCurse: This tilde sucks
MSmits: what do you mean swap sides
NinjaDoggy: good ole play as first, then play as second i assume
MSmits: but isnt that the same as pie rule?
reCurse: Nope
MSmits: mmh i am trying to grasp the difference
NinjaDoggy: no because you would play for win without account for steal
reCurse: 2 games instead of 1
NinjaDoggy: when going first
MSmits: ohh that kind of swap
MSmits: yeah but that is a worse solution for unbalanced games
jacek: but that would lead to draws
MSmits: exactly
NinjaDoggy: technically they both lead to draws right?
MSmits: with a small imbalance it's ok
NinjaDoggy: difference is the draw states might be more complex with pie rule
MSmits: not really NinjaDoggy, pie rule balances a single game
sprkrd: i prefer the kung fu chess way of balancing games
sprkrd: https://www.kfchess.com/
MSmits: swapping gives you two foregone conclusions that add up to a draw
MSmits: if the imbalance is big enough
NinjaDoggy: yea but fundamentally there's no difference
NinjaDoggy: it just depends on the amount of imbalance
MSmits: I think there's a fundamental difference
reCurse: There is a fundamental difference if there is no starting move with 50% winrate
reCurse: You just hope there's one
NinjaDoggy: ok true
MSmits: ok say you have a bot that is a little better and would win 55% on a balanced game
MSmits: now let it play an imbalanced game
MSmits: he always loses when he is not p1
JudgeAL: alright preliminary hypothesis on my journey to solve breakthrough
NinjaDoggy: technically same arguement can be made:
in the imbalanced game, the better bot might get a draw when not p1
MSmits: so on swap he'd have 50%
MSmits: instead of 55%
JudgeAL: black has a forced win
NinjaDoggy: but if we assume the balanced version has a forced draw it's technically the same thing
MSmits: my point is, the game being balanced does not mean that two equally strong players always draw
NinjaDoggy: just more complexity
JudgeAL: does black usually win in breakthrough currently with the bots?
MSmits: but with an imbalanced game two equally strong players *will* always draw
NinjaDoggy: doesn't it still just depend on the complexity of the game?
MSmits: if your bot is stronger, you need to be strong enough to overcome the disadvantage
MSmits: if you're only a little stronger, with swap, the advantage completely disappears
MSmits: with pie rule it does not
MSmits: yeah complexity enters into it somewhat
reCurse: Pie rule assumes there's a 50% winrate starting move
reCurse: Which I would argue is more often wrong
MSmits: a balanced one yes
MSmits: but even if not
MSmits: it's better than not having it at all
NinjaDoggy: ok so just pie rule + swap :)
reCurse: It's better to swap
MSmits: the rule can only make things better, not worse
NinjaDoggy: pie rule to make the game more balanced, swap anyways to compensate for the small imbalance
MSmits: in uttt, pie rule would have been better than swap
reCurse: Pie rule is insanely annoying to deal with
reCurse: No I disagree
MSmits: allright, best example of all: Yavalath
MSmits: I solved it for center move
MSmits: if you dont have pie rule, with swap it would be 100% draw
reCurse: Forced start with swap is better than pie with swap
MSmits: agreed
MSmits: a forced start is basically a forced pie rule
reCurse: My point is you should have solutions at least equally easy to implement better than pie rule
MSmits: instead of letting players choose a balanced move, you let the rules pick the balanced move
MSmits: so forced start is similar
reCurse: The difference is you don't have to write a different heuristic to decide if the start is balanced or not
reCurse: Which I find insanely obnoxious
MSmits: ahh but pie rule has 1 major advantage, it's a very safe thing to put into your game.
MSmits: if you're going to force a balanced start, you need to know what it is
MSmits: with pie rule, the meta will figure it out
MSmits: for you
reCurse: With swap the force doesn't need to be balanced just close enough
MSmits: lazy game design sure
reCurse: You introduced a second game
reCurse: With pie rule
reCurse: Therefore it sucks :P
MSmits: 2 games are not better than 1 ?
reCurse: Everyone loves wood league so I guess so
MSmits: you're right that our C4 would have been better with forces move 1 start
reCurse: Imagine chess960 with pie rule at start
reCurse: Not only I have to write a chess bot
reCurse: I also need to write a great first move eval
reCurse: ugh
MSmits: but yavalath is actually interesting for having various starts that work as balanced moves
MSmits: 5 out of 9
MSmits: i guess randoming them would have been cool too
MSmits: but then again you'd have to know at design time which ones they are
reCurse: You can progressively make forced random starts better when they're proven to be imbalanced
reCurse: It's seamless
reCurse: Bot makers don't have to worry about your crappy game design :P
MSmits: you mean just change the forced starts?
reCurse: Sure
reCurse: You can start with pure randoms
reCurse: You monitor games
MSmits: I guess if you warn botmakers that the start can be changed
reCurse: Weed out the imbalanced ones
reCurse: But it's always random start
reCurse: They have to assume it changes
MSmits: ohh ok
reCurse: So no break
MSmits: yes
NinjaDoggy: just use UCB1 or something ;)
MSmits: thats a nice solution reCurse
reCurse: Now we're talking NinjaDoggy
MSmits: I like it
MSmits: uttt would be so much better with this
reCurse: Yes
reCurse: Assuming you mean so much as a multiplicative ratio
reCurse: Then times zero works
MSmits: haha
MSmits: that uttt-hate :grin:
MSmits: seems like we end up agreeing at the end this time
MSmits: feels weird
MSmits: say something I dont agree with
NinjaDoggy: wait this idea is actually really cool because it extends beyond just the first move :O
MSmits: ye
MSmits: well its used in games
MSmits: i think gomoku uses it, and go I think ?
NinjaDoggy: no way Go uses it...
reCurse: Well there are some times I'm not completely wrong
MSmits: indeed
NinjaDoggy: isn't Go just balanced by komi?
MSmits: not sure, there's a ton of ways to play go
MSmits: apparently
MSmits: yeah i dont find it for go
MSmits: "ournament Gomoku has adopted the swap2 opening protocol starting in 2009. In Swap2, the first player starts by placing three stones, 2 black and 1 white, on the board. The second player then selects one of three options: play as black, play as white and place another white stone, or place two more stones, one white and one black, and let the first player choose the color"
MSmits: sounds a bit like pie rule too
MSmits: very complicated
MSmits: seems like all these x-in-a-row games have balance issues that need solutions like this
reCurse: I wish I was smart enough to understand go
JudgeAL: I think everyone can understand it, but hard to get good at
NinjaDoggy: it's not about being smart it's about building intuition from a young age ;)
reCurse: Well I mean I understand the rules
reCurse: I just don't "get" it
NinjaDoggy: tune your brain NN early :P
JudgeAL: lol get dem pattern recognition
JudgeAL: okay, breakthrough is harder to solve than I initially thought but still doable
Drichie: Quick question. I am doing the Chuck Norris Unary puzzle. My code works fine until I'm given a % symbol. My Code reads it in as 100101, but the puzzle wants it read in as 0100101. What am I doing wrong when it comes to symbols?
struct: padding 0
NinjaDoggy: @judgeAI you really think it's solvable for 8x8?
JudgeAL: yeah
struct: https://tromp.github.io/c4/c4.html
struct: solved for p2
Drichie: geez didn't even notice that, thank you!
jacek: breakthrough isnt solved for 6x6. 8x8 is orders of magnitudes bigger
struct: i think its only solved up to 5x5
JudgeAL: do you know if 6x4 is solved?
reCurse: No one made the breakthrough yet
JudgeAL: lol
NinjaDoggy: :joy:
JudgeAL: or like anyone have a link to solved versions?
NinjaDoggy: ok 6 by 6 seems relatively reasonable I suppose? since 36 choose 12 is like 1.25 billion
sprkrd: seems so
sprkrd: but the bound is more complicated than that
sprkrd: you have to consider also that some pawns may be missing
sprkrd: so it's not just arranging 12 pawns over 36 cells
NinjaDoggy: yea and that's only your pawns
NinjaDoggy: not counting opp pawns yet :P
JudgeAL: so for 6X2 black has forced win
JudgeAL: Im trying to build up from there
NinjaDoggy: but if you factor in invalid states, and pruning that can be done because it's 2 player game it seems possible to solve 6 by 6 with a regular machine
NinjaDoggy: oh are you trying to solve it mathematically as opposed to brute forcing?
JudgeAL: yeah
sprkrd: he's doing it right
struct: This article shows 6x6
struct: https://scholarworks.csun.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.3/174085/Isaac-Andrew-thesis-2016.pdf
struct: with tablebase
struct: But is not solved
jacek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_(board_game)#Game_Solving 6x5 5x5 3x7 solved
sprkrd: maths for the win
struct: They used 5th row tablebase for 6x6
JudgeAL: oh
NinjaDoggy: anyone use endgame table in breakthrough?
struct: i dont
struct: but I check for wins from 3rd row
jacek: just some ifology
struct: with a few shifts
JudgeAL: oh dang looks like second player winning for 8x8 is likely
NinjaDoggy: in general terms what does a mathematically solution even mean?
NinjaDoggy: like if a game is proven to be a draw
NinjaDoggy: but they can't extract the sequence of moves, how does that work?
sprkrd: depends on the proof
sprkrd: the proof for tic tac toe is constructive, you can extract the sequence of moves, for instance
MSmits: some proofs of this kind are super straightforward
sprkrd: but some proofs are not constructive
JudgeAL: yeah could be "fully/strongly solved" or like just solved in the sense you know the outcome of a perfect game
MSmits: I can tell you that our D&B game is not solved as a draw
MSmits: i can mathematically prove this
NinjaDoggy: :O
JudgeAL: wats D&B\
MSmits: 49 boxes to capture, can't tie :P
JudgeAL: oh
NinjaDoggy: :joy:
JudgeAL: dots and boxes?
MSmits: yeah
NinjaDoggy: good proof MSmits, thanks :)
MSmits: i think they solved checkers by a combination of opening databases, endgame databases, mathematical proof and brute search
NinjaDoggy: I like how you separate endgame databases from brute search :P
MSmits: well I guess... another brute search :)
struct: weakly solved
MSmits: weakly solved is what we mean by solved
JudgeAL: so what Im hearing is brute search *3 + some math
struct: I think this is the reason why checkers tournaments start from certain positions
MSmits: might be yes
MSmits: positions that would not be reached by a solver
NinjaDoggy: i think not reached is not quite right
NinjaDoggy: but not fully solved by the solver
MSmits: not reached in the sense that an ab pruned minimax doesnt need to visit all branches
NinjaDoggy: that's more like reached, but not solved right?
NinjaDoggy: i guess it's a small semantics thing
MSmits: yes semantics i think
MSmits: btw, brute search kinda sounds like it's simple
MSmits: but what they did for checkers wasnt simple at all, it's some genius stuff in there from the little i read of it
MSmits: endgame databases are a whole corner of study alone
MSmits: especially the indexing to make them as compact as possible to fit in RAM and such
MSmits: computer limitations makes people inventive. Today's computer power makes people lazy
NinjaDoggy: true :)
MSmits: i did a little indexing stuff for oware. Gave me some headaches to do this
jacek: and then you can owned by 10 copycats
MSmits: assigning a number of a certain distribution of seeds over 12 pits
MSmits: haha yes that too
MSmits: I remember trying to overfit to robo and re curse, back when they were the only nns
MSmits: could not imagine then that the top 10 would be all NN
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: Anyone here who's familiar with python willing to help me debug some code? :)
TobiasA: me pick me
TobiasA: :raised_hand:
ANONYMOUS42: wow someone is really eager to help
ANONYMOUS42: good for you
TobiasA: people with maliciously cryptic usernames are not to be trusted though
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: Oki ty
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: >,>
AstroHydes: don't worry about MCU, relatively trustworthy I believe
Astrobytes: Hm, wrong window
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: xD
struct: need to find next game where I can reuse my mcts with little to no effort :p
jacek: amazons?
struct: to many moves for me
Astrobytes: lazy git :D
MSmits: it's *your* game!
MSmits: and when are you making a yavalath both while we're at it
MSmits: bot
TobiasA: ppl who name themselves anonymous make their unidentifiability their identity which make them a living paradox
TobiasA: :imp:
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: o.o
jacek: o, i can follow him
MSmits: well I just think he is a fan of MCU movies and is afraid to come out and say it
MSmits: afraid of nerd judgement
NinjaDoggy: but... isn't MCU movies pretty mainstream now?
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: O.O
jacek: i think he meant author of yavalath
MSmits: we're not mainstream here :)
Astrobytes: There's another MCU
MSmits: oh no, don't start on the x-men movies again Astrobytes
Astrobytes: No, in chat
MSmits: o
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: lol
MSmits: thanks Marchete
MSmits: gj
Marchete: :thumbsup:
jacek: hm?
Marchete: even a broken bot is useful
MSmits: he pushed me to nr 1:P
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: Wow I completely reset my old code, wrote a rudimentary bot, and it's in the exact same rank as my old one after submitting
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: Not sure what that says about my old one
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: =,=
MSmits: depends on your rank
MSmits: could be they're both awesome
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: 643 out of 6677... gold csb
NinjaDoggy: rudimentary bot with awesome rank :thinking:
MSmits: like that plamop... something guy
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: It's just... simulation 5 turns ahead... that's all...
MSmits: in BT
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: rip gtg
NinjaDoggy: hahaha true :P
MSmits: MaliciouslyCrypticUsername that rank is probably better than -3vel though
NinjaDoggy: http://chat.codingame.com/pastebin/2f99d0b1-ff66-411b-a4c4-9f8ee4bae9f2
MSmits: yeah thats what he does
MSmits: you cracked it :)
Astrobytes: *broke through
struct: sim is quite simple too
MSmits: how do you know
struct: Because I did it pretty fast
MSmits: ohh i thought you meant the other guys sim
MSmits: sure yes, its quite simple
Astrobytes: I think it's the general case. It's not hard to sim
NinjaDoggy: can anyone help me with some pruning ideas in sokoban?
NinjaDoggy: https://www.codingame.com/ide/puzzle/sokoban
NinjaDoggy: I already solved the puzzle with basic bitboarding + BFS, but now i'm trying to think of clever pruning ideas :D
Astrobytes: don't push boxes in corners, hash states
Astrobytes: all I know :P
MSmits: hmm isnt there some way to also prune boxes on edges when there's no way to get them off the edge/
NinjaDoggy: yea I already got the hashing part
NinjaDoggy: and I have some ideas about precomputing:
NinjaDoggy: so given the position of the pusher and the position of a box
TobiasA: the only technique i know that has the word pruning in it is "alpha beta pruning"
NinjaDoggy: assume there's only that box, compute if you can push the box to a target location
NinjaDoggy: and this is precomputable in N^2(N = number of empty tiles)
MSmits: I never opened that puzzle before. another awesome piece of work by eulerscheZahl :)
TobiasA: prooning
NinjaDoggy: but can't think of anything else :(
MSmits: seems like a good thing to do
NinjaDoggy: yea it's pretty neat since computing it only takes N^2 and using it to prune is just 1 operation in the bitboard
NinjaDoggy: but it's still pretty basic since it doesn't deal with multiple boxes at all :/
MSmits: well i dont think more than 1 box is doable
MSmits: if there is a second box you're not just dealing with it as an obstacle
MSmits: it also still needs to go to its own destination
NinjaDoggy: oh I guess if i wanted, I could just extend it to add more boxes
NinjaDoggy: like precompute all arrangements of 2 boxes
NinjaDoggy: and see if both boxes can be pushed to a target
MSmits: yeah, that would give you a huge table though
NinjaDoggy: N = number of empty tiles
NinjaDoggy: storage needed would be N^(boxes+1) / 64 :P
sprkrd: you just wanted to do a shameless plug of your awesome pruning idea, didn't you :smirk:
MSmits: thats ok
NinjaDoggy: he found me out :P
sprkrd: I think yours is the best pruning idea I've heard until now
Astrobytes: :grin:
MSmits: me too
sprkrd: (the thing with just 1 box)
Astrobytes: did you test it yet?
NinjaDoggy: implementing it now
MSmits: euler needs to make a sokoban2 puzzle that needs the pruning
NinjaDoggy: was also hoping to find some golden egg someone else came up with ;)
sprkrd: I would go with that, with just 1 bot
sprkrd: that deals with corners, edges, and even other trickier positions
NinjaDoggy: yea I'll start with the 1 box and see how much it prunes
sprkrd: box*
NinjaDoggy: too used to typing bot :joy: relatable
sprkrd: yeah :joy:
Astrobytes: I end sentences with ;
NinjaDoggy: LOL :joy:
MSmits: Astrobytes switch to python and people won't notice your complete detachment from the non-coding world
Astrobytes: :rofl:
sprkrd: i'd rather see how he'd speak if he switched to Lisp
Astrobytes: ()
MSmits: with a lisp, obviously
sprkrd: (with a lisp (obviously))
MSmits: :)
MSmits: I got a request for help last night
MSmits: from someone in China
sprkrd: you have to take a plane?
Astrobytes: on CG or real life?
MSmits: but was about to sleep so couldnt help. But I think he/she was communicating through google translate
MSmits: CG
MSmits: was a nice person, but it's hard to understand through translation
MSmits: getting a general simple idea across works, kinda, but complex coding problems...
AstroHydes: How do you know they were nice then?
Astrobytes: argh
MSmits: argh what animal is that
MSmits: he/she was just super polite
Astrobytes: I was just expressing frustration at typing from my alt again, I have disabled chat on it now
MSmits: ahh ok
MSmits: i do it too
MSmits: we suck at smurfing
Astrobytes: I know eh
KiwiTae: I am worse I forgot my alt logs
Astrobytes: :rofl:
MSmits: lol
MSmits: this is fun if it happens right after you submitted your best bot on it
MSmits: it'd be up there and you cant beat it
Astrobytes: hehehe
MSmits: eh, mr CG dev, I want to report an alt account
Marchete: hmm soryy smits
Marchete: sorry*
MSmits: oww
MSmits: :(
MSmits: ah well
Marchete: your 100% vs everyone else is no more
MSmits: always the same way too, i sacrifice a box and then you win on score
Marchete: the thing is that I removed the RNG
Marchete: in that submit
Marchete: to see if I can track the bug
MSmits: oh
Marchete: so I play "heuristic"
MSmits: this is a timeout bug we're talking about right?
Marchete: anyways 57% vs mikla 30% vs you
Marchete: no problem, you are 1st again
MSmits: ah coolio
Marchete: "timeout" as overflow
Marchete: I think I go out of bounds
MSmits: of an array?
Marchete: yeah
Marchete: but as I said
MSmits: ah, should be easy to check
MSmits: cerr everywhere
Marchete: an array with multiples uses
Astrobytes: assert()
Marchete: like it can hold a graph with 5 subgraphs
MSmits: fine, do it the "professional" way, with assert :P
Marchete: or a graph with N+ subgraphs
Marchete: cerr << "A"<<endl;
Marchete: cerr << "B"<<endl;
Marchete: etc :D
MSmits: yeah!
MSmits: i tend to do cerr << "woops" << endl;
MSmits: cerr << "wtf how?" << endl;
Astrobytes: I have lots of those as well as asserts
Marchete: well, I'll see that another day
Marchete: 3rd with bugs is fine
Marchete: cya!
MSmits: very true
MSmits: gj and gn
Astrobytes: cerr << "f***"/"why"/"test"/"this is wrong" etc
MSmits: thats what i do yea
Astrobytes: later Marchete
MSmits: I've been listening to music while coding for days since we last talked about it
MSmits: same YT track
Astrobytes: and of course "wetrertewrtwert"
MSmits: i shared it here to say what sort of music i listen to and now i cant stop listening to it
Astrobytes: remind me again
MSmits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiwuQ6UHMQg&t=3660s
Astrobytes: Oh yeah I remember
MSmits: he's really really good
Astrobytes: If I want some chill stuff I often listen to Yann Tiersen
MSmits: oh i see
MSmits: this is not just chill stuff though, it's all celtic but there's different levels of energy
MSmits: I'll check this guy out too
Astrobytes: Speaking as a Celt, it's not so much Celtic but Celtic-inspired
MSmits: ahh ok, speaking as a non-celt nor expert, I just think it's very beautiful music :0
Astrobytes: Some of it isn't too bad
MSmits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK-j2XVl_mc this is the one i like best, if you just want 1 track
Astrobytes: (from a Scots person that means it's alright)
MSmits: yeah, I'm just weird that i never bother to listen to music, so this is kinda new to me
MSmits: i dont like much at all
Astrobytes: Not bad. Euphoric moments.
MSmits: yeah
MSmits: it's just 1 guy behind a computer and I think he plays 1 instrument
Astrobytes: It's almost getting towards My Heart Will Go On material though
MSmits: keyboard +guitar
MSmits: ahh yes
MSmits: titanic
Astrobytes: Yes I imagine many a sample pack was used in the creation of this music
MSmits: not sure what his workflow is, but he makes his money doing this
Astrobytes: Good on him The world needs music.
MSmits: yeah. I also like all the comments under his videos. I am used to watching YT about US politics and such
MSmits: so positive, these
Astrobytes: I try not to read most of the comments on YT unless I am familiar with the channel
MSmits: sometimes i cant resist a quick look, but pretty toxic
MSmits: "My hair starts to braid itself while listening to this."
Astrobytes: The Jerry Garcia channel I'm regular on is just full of stoned hippies. It's friendlier than a friendly thing at a friendliness convention.
MSmits: haha i can imagine
Astrobytes: Great music though, and genuinely nice people.
Illedan: Hi
Astrobytes: :wave:
MSmits: hi Illedan
Illedan: Renovation takes so much time :expressionless:
MSmits: depends on what you're renovating but sure
Astrobytes: What you doing?
Illedan: Kids room
Astrobytes: Ah
MSmits: ahh ok
Astrobytes: Preparing for the next stage
MSmits: we're back to reproduction again
Illedan: :D
Illedan: So, now I got 30 min to try and fix some snake shit
Illedan: Lets go!
Illedan: Did anyone manage to get some intellisense env with this CG JS?
struct: only for pixi
struct: But it wasnt great
Illedan: -.-
struct: I used intellij I think
struct: ultimate
Illedan: Same, but JS is crap
Illedan: ah
Illedan: I use CE
Illedan: Ok, stealing everything from Euler and hope it will work in the end :)
Illedan: yoloCoder3000
Astrobytes: lol
MSmits: no need to hurry Illedan snakes shit only once every 3 days at most
Astrobytes: *at least
Astrobytes: oh wait, yeah
MSmits: apparently they can take months between shits
MSmits: poor diet imho
Astrobytes: yeah, depends what they eat
Astrobytes: Once they finish digesting their meal they shit
Illedan: hmm
MSmits: thats how shit works
Illedan: I guess I can add that to the logic
Astrobytes: But it takes a long time for sneks
MSmits: yeah
Illedan: 3 days are outside CG timelimit though
MSmits: true
Astrobytes: And they only do 1 big jobby
MSmits: better give them diarrhea
Astrobytes: We might go for a few
Astrobytes: snek will make a not smol jobby after every meal
Astrobytes: Imagine an anaconda shite after eating something big...
Astrobytes: Could take a month but you don't wanna be there
MSmits: I'm sure it would be worse if you were the one getting eaten
Astrobytes: Very possibly
MSmits: but yeah i would not want to watch you get pooped out either
MSmits: btw Illedan dont mind us, but do save this chat for the backstory
Astrobytes: :rofl:
Illedan: xd
3141948: > Imagine an anaconda shite after eating something big...
😂
Astrobytes: lol, sorry :D
Illedan: If I wasn't lazy I would make Nokia 3310 theme on this snake :P
MSmits: like euler did for minesweeper?
Astrobytes: haha you know :D
Illedan: ye
Illedan: But I'm not euler
Illedan: and I don't have time for this :P
Illedan: Wanted a quick and dirty new Optim
Illedan: yeyeye
Illedan: Astro will get a box of used diapers for putting me up for this
MSmits: priorities, right, a theme for kids room or a theme for snake
MSmits: easy choice imho
Illedan: Snake theme kids room!
MSmits: works
MSmits: also something to talk about with his/her therapist in 20 years
Astrobytes: Aw thanks man! :/
Astrobytes: :rofl:
Astrobytes: Snek theme for kids room would be awesome
MSmits: I like it when things go against the norm
Astrobytes: I always wanted to paint my room black so I could paint stars and nebulae on it
Astrobytes: Wasn't allowed :(
Illedan: If my kid want a pink unicorn room in a few years, I'll do it. But if I teach her right, it will be a giant NN on the wall :D
Astrobytes: hahaha, ML kindergarten is real
KiwiTae: when u find a big booboo in your code that must have been in there for 3 4 months.. shame on me lol
Astrobytes: sounds normal :)
KiwiTae: It was making my bot refusing to converge towards a static target~
Astrobytes: what game?
KiwiTae: so annoying~ 2letters for a naughty behavior heh
KiwiTae: Astrobytes real life robot hehe
Astrobytes: Aha! Much more fun :D
Astrobytes: Casual or for work?
KiwiTae: both :sunglasses: :joy:
Astrobytes: Excellent answer :)
KiwiTae: casual work u do on a sunday evenin lmao
Astrobytes: Serious though, there are loads of kits out there to play around with
Astrobytes: I mean you could actually create a nail polish drying robot! :P
KiwiTae: Astrobytes would be sooo useful :joy:
Illedan: Alright off to bed. 200 lines of untested JS code done. Hope it works when I have time to finish it :)
Illedan: bye
IlyasDirham: follow for a follow
KiwiTae: see yaaa
TobiasA: buhbye
Astrobytes: later Illedan
Astrobytes: lol KiwiTae
GumChew: test
Astrobytes: segmentation fault
HeroicRobot_cf06: WHY MY CODE NOT WORK:
if(1+1===3)
tunisian: hello
Astrobytes: Because you are trolling HeroicRobot_cf06
SaifAli153: if((1+1)===3)
check
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: LOL
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: Automaton2000
Automaton2000: any idea what that means lol
MaliciouslyCrypticUsername: nope i don't either :shrug:
FalINTOblivion0112: seems sus
phKvothe: Anyone else have it where after a couple runs, the pods quit doing the animation on screen? I still get the printouts below, but would like to see the pods in action to determine the changes i need to make
TobiasA: :raised_hand:
Wontonimo: hiya TobiasA
TobiasA: ooooiiiiiii
TobiasA: long time
Wontonimo: yeah. how's things?
Wontonimo: what browser are you using phKvothe ?
phKvothe: I'm running in Chrome. Just have to refresh the screen from time to time. It seems to keep the code, so thats all good
Wontonimo: sometimes i use the share button to make the playback open in another tab. it always plays perfectly in the other tab. kinda kludgy way around it, but it works
TobiasA: it's been good
phKvothe: thank you, will try that!
Wontonimo: a benefit to keeping a few old playbacks in other tabs is that you can now reference back to them to see behaviour change difference with your new code
Wontonimo: have you been working on an challenge or multi TobiasA ?
TobiasA: i've done some puzzles
TobiasA: i'm trying to fix something in csb too
phKvothe: How do I tell if I'm faster? Is it the number of steps to win? I thought it might be time, but don't see that changing, however, my steps did go from 199 to 188, so that seems like it might be it. But first time doing this, so just wanted to verify.
Wontonimo: what are you playing phKvothe ?
phKvothe: Coders Strike Back
phKvothe: it was the listed top one for training, so just went with it
phKvothe: Once I click "Test in Arena", do I do anything else? It looks like it just kicks off and plays against others automatically. Is that correct?
Wontonimo: yeah, just sit back and watch battle tv
Wontonimo: or work on you next improvement, of go make a sandwich
iBug: Security Check
Wontonimo: 4520 4743 5543 8821 pin 445
Wontonimo: does it check out iBug ?
Wontonimo: (I guess iBug is now going on a shopping spree)
iBug: My English is bad
Wontonimo: me too iBug. me too
iBug: are you from?
Wontonimo: Canada
FalINTOblivion0112: guys im working on a contribution
FalINTOblivion0112: should i make the coc ez or hard
iBug: oh I am Chinese
FalINTOblivion0112: wut
Wontonimo: iBug was talking to me
FalINTOblivion0112: oh actually I am chinese too
FalINTOblivion0112: no cap
iBug: How to learn Engish
Wontonimo: i'm assuming it's like anything else. practice. A friend of mine learns new languages by trying to take all his notes in the new language
FalINTOblivion0112: I struggled when I was first trying to learn english
Wontonimo: me too
FalINTOblivion0112: But I studied and improved quickly by reading literature
Wontonimo: i had 4 good tutors and still wasn't able to make full complete sentence until 5 years tutoring
iBug: ok thk，iam going to work
LibgdxKotlinChampion: question b0ss
Wontonimo: have a good work day iBug. hope to see you online another day
iBug: I Follow you 。see you next time
FalINTOblivion0112: i follow you iBug
Wontonimo: everyone follow everyone :tada: :tada:
iBug: following too
FalINTOblivion0112: yes
iBug: have nice day:sunglasses:
FalINTOblivion0112: you too bro
DeathWarrior990: hi
FalINTOblivion0112: Guys i have new contribution please view it thanks
FalINTOblivion0112: i need that for a skill tree level up lol
fiefia123: xixi
halloweens: guys, how to see the code that ppl submitted to the leaderborad, I can't find one in the mars lander optimization
