Timeline for Sandbox for Proposed Challenges
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2019 at 15:34 | comment | added | ბიმო |
If they/you use that bots.py you'll need to manually update the imports or do it inside the bot itself, atm. bots could use random and time, maybe add math too.
|
|
| Jan 10, 2019 at 15:33 | comment | added | ბიმო |
@ShieruAsakoto: Yeah, I added the header to bots.py which will be used, all the users' code will be appended to that and written to auto_bots.py.. Basically you'll only need to checkout the few variables (lines 12-20) and the main (from line 117) to see how it works. About the formatting, yes, that's probably the most sane: Make sure every code starts with class NameOfBot(TimedBot):, all definitions are in that class and it's valid Python 3 code (I updated the code_matcher like this it should work fine).
|
|
| Jan 10, 2019 at 15:19 | comment | added | Shieru Asakoto |
@BMO Wow that's a good one! And I saw my code in the source lol BTW for the certain formatting part you mean the lines around class FooBar(TimedBot):?
|
|
| Jan 10, 2019 at 13:48 | comment | added | ბიმო |
I would remove the submission deadline, why not keep it open and update once a new entry comes? Also you might be interested in this (I adapted the code originally written for another KoTH), the easiest thing will be to enforce a certain formatting on the first line and adapt code_matcher to that formatting, st. that it won't break because everyone is using different formatting.
|
|
| Jan 10, 2019 at 1:34 | history | edited | Shieru Asakoto | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 485 characters in body
|
| Jan 10, 2019 at 0:39 | comment | added | Shieru Asakoto | @PeterTaylor Great catch! During discussion only the suggestion of giving two initial numbers was achieved, so I didn't realize that. | |
| Jan 9, 2019 at 11:16 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | Do you realise that guaranteeing that the first two numbers are coprime guarantees that the first player will win with correct play? If you want an interesting game then you should generate the first two numbers randomly as 3-smooth numbers with a GCD which is a multiple of 6 and greater than 12. | |
| Jan 9, 2019 at 6:02 | history | edited | Shieru Asakoto | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 178 characters in body
|
| Jan 4, 2019 at 5:30 | history | edited | Shieru Asakoto | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 237 characters in body
|
| Dec 25, 2018 at 5:48 | comment | added | Shieru Asakoto | @Spitemaster That's a good idea, but what I concerned about on large numbers is that the validation may take too long (because we are solving Diophantine equations in many unknowns) | |
| Dec 24, 2018 at 16:47 | comment | added | Spitemaster | I'd say: don't restrict the highest move, but give each bot a 'chess clock': they start with (say) 10s, and gain 1 second per move (and pass their clock's time as a parameter). Running over time is an automatic loss, and some percentage of time losses is a disqualification. Playing high moves will quickly exhaust their stock of time if they attempt to calculate extensive game trees, which will force the bots to either play quickly or lower their numbers. Adding a decay function to the time per move will encourage smart bots to play smaller numbers to not run out of time to think. | |
| Dec 18, 2018 at 9:30 | comment | added | Shieru Asakoto | @isaacg If the number does not start out too large a game should end quite quickly. It is because two coprime numbers already make the number of possible moves finite. But If I pose a criteria on how large a number can at most go, then I'm feared that there may be a problem that the game tree is restricted. | |
| Dec 18, 2018 at 9:29 | comment | added | Shieru Asakoto | @PeterTaylor I'd say my intention is that the controller will validate the responses. (in the test drive there is the code doing exactly that) | |
| Dec 18, 2018 at 1:13 | comment | added | isaacg | What if a game goes on for a billion turns? | |
| Dec 17, 2018 at 20:48 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | "The player who announced a number not complying with Rule 2 ... loses." I've been thinking about this. I presume that your intention is that the controller will validate the responses. An alternative would be to say that you don't automatically lose, but to add a type of response where the bot can return a proof that the opponent broke rule 2. Then bot programmers have to make a decision as to how much time to spend trying to show that their opponent lost vs computing a valid response. | |
| Dec 17, 2018 at 9:35 | history | edited | Shieru Asakoto | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 256 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2018 at 9:31 | comment | added | Shieru Asakoto | @PeterTaylor Oh yes I thought about the time limit but I turned out forgetting to put that ;p | |
| Dec 17, 2018 at 9:26 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | Probably needs some time limit for responses to prevent solutions which attempt to generate a full game tree. | |
| Dec 17, 2018 at 7:04 | history | edited | Shieru Asakoto | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 125 characters in body
|
| Dec 17, 2018 at 6:49 | history | answered | Shieru Asakoto | CC BY-SA 4.0 |