re robot cheating

I dont chat much here,dont rant or complain.

I have good communication skills,but talk only to friends.

so I hope this doesnt provoke a lot of those on the fringe.

but I have played several players,who I have played with very fast,any word as a test.

they make a word IMMEDIATELY after a move.

must be robots,I am convinced "AI RANKA level 10" is one.

if not ,then that player is the flash.

I think this is not fair.

robots should be stopped.

or you should be given the option to cancel the game with no loss.

what say ye all?

clearly what I am trying to say,is that you should be told you are playing a robot,and given a choice to stop the game.

AI (Artificial Intelligence) indicates that it is a robot, so most people are aware that they are playing against a computer program.

On the other hand, you are right: it should be made clear with a one line message, right from the beginning, that these "players" are bots. (For example, FatPhil did not do that with his 'derob' nick.)

And to add to your suggestions: bots, computer programs, and their company should not be allowed to play rated games at all.

Cleverhunk, the AI Rankas are bots - as shown by the "AI". I assume they were made for testing WYPS.

I agree that bots should clearly state that they are bots, but isn't it sufficuent to do so in their name. like including "AI", "bot" or ending the name with "-c"? Well, I guess it wouldn't hurt if their opening message went along the lines of "Hi, I'm a bot - have a nice game", but it should be easy to spot anyway if the naming is good.

As for bots in general, here as in many other fields, we need a RULES PAGE! This is LGs greatest flaw, that it does not have a rules page. Anyway, my personal opinion (which I suppose matters little) is that the rules for bots should vary from game to game. Having bots accepting invitations or posting unrated - even rated, maybe - games in the waiting room is probably OK for all games. Here, they do not interfere with any tournament, and only play against players why seek to play against them. For some games, like chess, reversi, 4ir and more, I think this is all that should be allowed. For some other games, I think it's ok that they take part in some rated tournaments as well. However, I think that there are only a few games where their participation in the championship should be allowed (EWN is one such game, IMO).

Oh, and there is a HUGE difference between a pure bot and a human assisted by a computer engine! If a bot is to play, it should do so without any human interferrance (perhaps with the exception for a few unrated games in the testing phase).

What would be a solution is to have a different account type for bots. Make them easly recognizable. You also should be able to filter rankings: humans, bots ans humans+bots.

I don't mind playing bots in games like Dvonn. I know the bots and it's fun to see if you can beat them by focusing on their flaws.

The discussion is a moot point unless Richard decides to address the issue.

Meanwhile, here is my opinion. On the "edit profile" page, RM should have a box to click if that user id is a bot. Then (C) should appear automatically next to the bot's nickname.

I think that it would be a good idea to allow bots to play in monthly cups, then humans can either decide to play or drop out of the monthly cup. I also think bots should NOT be allowed to play in championships. And for user tournaments, I think the designer of the individual tournament should be able to click a box allowing or disallowing bots.

Just my 2 cents worth.

I completely agree with Ray.

There are some sites (e.g. itsyourturn.com) where assistance from programs is explicitly allowed, mainly because there's no way to enforce a rule against it. I haven't come across any fully automated bots there, but I don't think there are any for Hex, anyway.

While a box to click and a resulting (C) might be nice, there are maybe half a dozen of the thousands of players on this site that would use it. And the effect can be achieved with a naming convention like _c. I'd rather see Richard's development time devoted elsewhere.

RoRoRo is no doubt the most famous bot at LG. In Havannah there are Wanderer, Gambler, and maybe one more I'm not thinking of. Which are the other bots playing at LG? (Outed bots, that is, not clandestine assistants in the closet)

That's not really true that only half a dozen out of a few thousand player would use it, because everyone who encounter with these bots will 'use' this feature.

Let me rephrase as "...maybe half a dozen of the thousands of players on this site would click it".

TOBRT is the 4th bot mentioned here so far.

Then there is GnuGo the Go playing bot.

In EWN there are at least 4 different bots:

RoRoRo the bot

hanfried_c

fraggle_c (not playing at the moment)

hubbie_c (not playing at the moment)

Check this link to an old thread at the Word games forum section with a partial list.

AI RANKA level 10 is a bot,I should have realized,I play fast,thought it was "AL RANKA" an arab name or something.anyway,I will analyze names more closely now.

maybe something as simple as an "AI" icon would be a fair eye catcher.

as for cheating(YES it is),whats the point?

its a hollow victory.it does not reflect how well you do in the game,and makes our statics here "artificial".people get real.

first of all maybe there're thousands of players playing on this site, but only a hundredish play on champonships each game. what if there're four bots playing in a championship? there's a good chance that all of them will play in the first league. that would be a sad state, and we're not too far from this.

or am i too paranoid?

the worse thing about robots is that we can all forget any chance of getting into the top scoring positions.for those that are really good or really competative.

it sure takes all the fun of playing out of things.

For a new game like WYPS, having a bot that moves instantly is very valuable to people learning the rules. But I agree that the should be clearly marked.

Richard, the webmaster, said that a new game was in the web, and a bot (with which he tested the game) was available.

I think that's good :) anyway, I agree that it would be great to have a graphic icon (a computer or similar) next to the name :)

no offense,gpallis,but I see no value in chaeting robots,because cheating is a hollow victory.

as far as "valuable to people learning the rules",its more valuable for people to use"the little grey cells" as Hercule Poirot would say.

A robot that plays by the rules is not cheating.

And you can exercise your little grey cells a lot more efficiently if you can play against a robot than you can if you are not playing against anyone at all.

If you start reading in the various forums, you'll notice that bots are treated very differently in different games. In Havannah, I think they are welcome - possibly because they only play well on small boards yet. In Einstein, I have noticed SOME discontent, but bots seem to be largely accepted and welcomed. In Reversi, bots are cursed by virtually all non-cheaters as a total spoiler of the game. I ASSUME the same goes for chess, but that's just an assumption, as I don't read the chess forum much.

For other games, some think bots should stay away from championships, but accept them in UTs and MCs. For invitations and waiting room games, I guess bots are always OK, if IDENTIFIED as bots, since it then is you who approach the bot and ask for a game.

What is "cheating" and not is not very clear. I guess that in a sense, nothing is cheating, since we don't have a rules page here on LG. In my opinion, that is the single most important weakness of this otherwise great site.

Excerpts from the forum ypercube mentioned:

"2007-07-18

bloke

my vote remains the same: bots should not be allowed to play in championships and MC tourneys in any LG games. full stop."

I would add UTs to that list now, if the UT contains rated games. Robots should be clearly identified and if they want ranking between themselves, then let them play in their own RTs (robot tournaments). That is, bots are not supposed to play rated games with humans.

UTs and RTs sound really good. I'd add FTs (Free Tournaments). If you enter a FT you are aware that bots may be registered. I would'nt mind registering an FT.

I agree with bloke. It's not cheating in a game where computers don't dominate, but it's still not how I'd prefer to see any sort of periodic championship awarded.

The analogy may be old news to those who've followed discussions of computer chess for a while, but it's like entering a forklift in a weightlifting championship. And just because current models of forklifts may not be good at some kinds of weight configurations doesn't mean the manufacturer of the forklift should have a chance to deny a human competitor a championship.

Monthly Cups, despite not having the workd "championship" in their name, are championships. As are some user-organized competitions. But I don't at all mind computers playing in individual user tournaments unless the organizer doesn't want them.

OTOH, any prohibition wouldn't be enforced, so I'm really just taalking about wishes, not proposals.

regardless of what your attitude towards robots is,and yes I do see the pro's and con's.

I still can't beleive that when someone typed"A robot that plays by the rules is not cheating",that they did it with a straight face.no one could beleive this.

Seems you can call me 'no one', CleverHunk. On a site which has no rules whatsoever about bots, how can a bot, clearly marked as such, cheat just by playing???

I do understand the opinions on bots in tournaments differ and I respect the view of those who say bots shouldn't play in any tournament (even though that view is not mine). But calling the existence of bots cheating looks like defining cheating as anything you don't like.

If I remember correctly Richard (the owner of this website) has even supported building interfaces for bots by providing information. Not exactly an indication that bots are forbidden.

In Einstein and Havannah this site has become a playground for game AI developer. I personally think this is an enrichment for this site.

no one is perfect Richy....

Cleverhunk thinks we are both are perfect.... because I also could believe it :-)

Me too. I personally do not mind at all if bots play at rated tournaments, even in championships.

What I don't like at all, is people that (secretly or not) use computers as a help to find good moves. This has become a problem mainly at Reversi and less in a few other games.

By the way, I do understand the people who don't like to play against bots but I'll say it again - with a toatlly straight face - I do like to play against bots. And I don't find that cheating.

You don't mind playing against bots in championships because there're only a few bots present. But if you let one bot to play in rated games, you have to let other bots too. Imagine a championship where 20-30 bots playing. You still won't mind playing against them?

Nice use of slippery slope and straw man. Let's hope ypercube doesn't notice.

It's a legit point, Phil. Are you saying it's OK for no only because we don't have too many bots, but we'd need to re-think it if there are many more?

You won't be able to remove bots just by making rules. The legitimate ones will disappear, the cheating continues. This has been a problem on all games sites that do have rules.

When there are rules, there should be a process of enforcing them as well. It means time must be invested in detecting the cheaters handling bans etc. This is not a trivial task.

By the way, it is my personal opinion that whenever a bot is competing for the top spots, it should remove itself as there is nothing more to prove here. This is certainly not the case in Havannah yet, except perhaps for size 4 (and Gambler no longer registers for games in that size, but will play when invited).

I'm inclined to agree with both Phil and Richard. Some bots are fun to play against. Some aren't. Though I don't imagine it's much fun for anyone to play against expert reversi, chess, or GWG robots, I've enjoyed my Havannah and EWN games against machine opponents.

For me, I think, in order for it to be fun I need to feel like I've got a chance of winning.

DVD - yes, I believe there is an acceptable proportion of bots, and an unacceptable proportion, and a fuzzy zone in between the two. I think about 3 EinStein champs ago, there were 3 bots in the top league, which I thought was heading into the fuzzy area. Large numbers of bots will not suddenly appear over-night, therefore that fuzzy zone will give us time to address what should happen if it looks like it's heading out of the wrong end of the fuzzy zone, should that happen. Indeed, we all noticed that there were 3 bots in EinStein, and we did briefly discuss it, and whether it was a problem.

The bots should be there to enhance the site, not overrun it.

To that end, as I think I've stated before, and as Richard and zwack also have just implied, I think that the bots should be parameterised so that they provide a challenge, not such that they are unbeatable. Quite where Richard's "competing for the top spots" is aimed is again a fuzzy area - I think regularly finishing in the top half of the top division of the championship is perfectly acceptable, which is where I've aimed RoRoRo's Dvonn and EinStein AI. (4IR and D&B don't have what you'd really call AI currently, so I can't aim them anywhere!). Regularly finishing first - that would be a different matter, and that should indeed invite a down-parametrisation.

I didnt mean to offend any one.its just that bots are better than people,its not fair(I won't even mention the word cheat).

as one who understands Ai,they will only get better.

there are many really good players here,my compliments to them.

why we need to cheat..oops..I mean use bots..someone needs to explain to me.

its good in the development of Ai,but here,it eliminates the chance to humans to do well.can we realy argue this?

and won't the really good players(that are not bots)agree.that they got there by using the little grey cells?

maybe we need bot and non-bots games,so everyone is happy

The development of AI in games like Havannah require playing games against those that play it better. This has been stimulated by quite a few Havannah players. As I said before, when my bot is competing for the top spots, it is mission accomplished as far as I'm concerned and my bot will leave.

I already have a fairly strong chess bot. I'm not interested in letting it play here as it would be too strong (it does play with a computer label at ICC and playchess now and then where there are anti-computer measures in place to protect those that do not want to play computers).

But anyway. I don't think the Bots that are out in the open are the real problem. Those that conceal using a bot are probably the bigger annoyance. No simple measure will be sufficient to get rid of those.

I enjoy a lot beating RoRoRo in Einstein :-) and, believe me, I used my little grey cells to do so.

Who was "using" the bot in that game? For sure I feel like it was ME who used the bot. Was I cheating? I don't think so.

http://roodiedoodie.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/robots8.jpg

http://roodiedoodie.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/robots12.jpg

http://static.blogstorage.hi-pi.com/photos/hacker-73.blog.jeuxvideo.com/images/gd/1137088851/ERREUR-ROBOT-ERREUR-ROBOT-ERREUR-ROBOT.jpg

http://xkcd.com/303/

the Programmer's Drinking Song:

99 little bugs in the code,

99 bugs in the code,

Fix one bug, compile it again,

100 little bugs in the code.

(go to start if bugs>0)

+++

IF RICHUNCLE IS LESS THAN COOPERATIVE THEN

SET HIM TO WORK IN COALMINE

ELSE

MOVE HIM TO SOUTH OF FRANCE

ADD WINE WOMEN SONG GIVING CORONARY

PERFORM FUNERAL

+++

http://a33.idata.over-blog.com/2/87/79/27/black-frames/260274.jpg

this thread it's now silly, or it's just me?

and the sillyness comes from who started the topic!

yes true.but seriously,it seems people feel stringly on both sides of the issue of cheating

Many people feel nearly as strongly about bots as most do about cheating. However, almost everyone is able to distinguish between the two topics. Alas some aren't.

Indeed. CleverHunk is engaging in an 'assumptive close'. It's like arguing against abortion by saying people feel strongly in both directions about murder.

lol.I knew if I phrased it like that,that I would get that response.

With some games it's like Usain Bolt v a motorbike in a race the machine simply obliterates even the best humanity has to offer.

Now the bots that are eminantly beatable shouldn't pose a problem they can presumably be beaten easier than a human to learn how to as they are probably not able to adapt their play like a would.

However nobody wants to bother racing a motorbike on foot.

It seems to me like the point is being missed here quite a bit. I kind of thought that the main idea here was to have a little fun playing board games. It seems like there are three different things we are talking about here.

1. AI developers who are trying to find decent opponents for their code so they can develop it further . That is still fun because it is competitive and sort of cool.

2. AI developers who have very strong code and are just beating the tar out of us poor mortals. That is not fun and boarders on pathetic, like beating up twelve year-old kids. These folks should get out more.

3. Guys who are using code to figure out their moves for them. No fun and really, truly funny. Who want's to be the interface for a machine? These guys may as well be printer cables. So if that is what you are doing then the next time you are in the basement and "win" a game it's okay to pump your fist in the air but don't shout too loudly, you don't want to wake up your mom who is sleeping upstairs. Sheeze!

Good to make this distinction, elroy!

In GWG, FatPhil may have started out with the Type 1 Experiment, but over time he demonstrated a full-fledged Type 2 Behavior. His games were less and less fun for us poor mortals and sure I felt like a 12 year-old (wait, five) kid, all that with a 2000-plus ranking average.

FatPhil defends himself by claiming that Tore Sandmark has also developed a code -- but there is no proof. And who would want to be pushed aside anyway to see how two codes/programs fight it off leaving no chance for the others?

Type 3 behavior is definitely a combination of using bots AND cheating: the Jamaica Company, lots of Russian gomoku players, and even FatPhils own 'derob' nick falls under this category. Pump your fists!

So this forum topic CleverHunk started does make sense, but only because elroy made a useful clarification.

May I add that the game may matter? I'm exclusively involved in type 1 against such clever havannah bots as wanderer_c, gambler and tobrt. _Very_ strong code doesn't yet exist in havannah and all progress is fun :)

PS. On small boards the code is very strong, so I play base-6 and up, and I do lose a fair number of games, but still win the majority.