I won’t let one person submit two programs to compete in the tournament, but I came up with a possible compromise. If you want, you can send me two programs and tell me which one you want to compete. I’ll run the non-competitor against the other programs as well, and tell you the results, but the non-competitor will not be ranked, and rounds involving the non-competitor will not be counted towards the scores of other submissions.
Okay, fair enough. I don’t see why the scoring changes for N=1 vs N=2 on the number of bots per player (edit: if anything it’s more interesting since then you have an incentive to make your bots cooperate), but I’ll just hold back the other design for now—on the off chance we do a tournament like this again :p
On further reflection this seems to be a problem with the scoring. (Assuming that the point of the exercise is to investigate PD programs, not to grant medals to LW users.) But I don’t have a better proposal, so take this more like musings rather than critique.
Replying to prevent the edit mark (given the sha1) -- last sentence was supposed to be “split the overlap difference and bet :)”. Currency needs to be USD or BTC, let’s have a reputable Berkeley area LWer doing the escrow.
I have two bots I’d like to submit—one of which will likely win, and one of which is interesting.
Any chance we can allow two submissions per programmer?
I won’t let one person submit two programs to compete in the tournament, but I came up with a possible compromise. If you want, you can send me two programs and tell me which one you want to compete. I’ll run the non-competitor against the other programs as well, and tell you the results, but the non-competitor will not be ranked, and rounds involving the non-competitor will not be counted towards the scores of other submissions.
Okay, fair enough. I don’t see why the scoring changes for N=1 vs N=2 on the number of bots per player (edit: if anything it’s more interesting since then you have an incentive to make your bots cooperate), but I’ll just hold back the other design for now—on the off chance we do a tournament like this again :p
I’m curious what the rationale for this is, could you share it with us?
Edit: If it’s got to do with the scoring, I got it.
Yes, scoring.
On further reflection this seems to be a problem with the scoring. (Assuming that the point of the exercise is to investigate PD programs, not to grant medals to LW users.) But I don’t have a better proposal, so take this more like musings rather than critique.
I think that sort of effect is inevitable.
Care to put a probability on that prediction?
Sure. The SHA1 of my odds in the following format:
“xx% to win +-y% spread {password}”
(meaning I’d sell you me to win for more than xx% + y%, and buy me to win from you at xx% - y%).
is:
897a40baca33e2a53a49bdddc00abede82713a7c (sha1-online.com)
Give me your odds and desired size. If there’s overlap, let’s split the overlap difference bet :)
Replying to prevent the edit mark (given the sha1) -- last sentence was supposed to be “split the overlap difference and bet :)”. Currency needs to be USD or BTC, let’s have a reputable Berkeley area LWer doing the escrow.