In the case your opponent challenges it just to gain knowledge on how to play better around the rule, you could just increase the points he would lose. Instead of 1 it could be 3 or more. Also there isn’t really a point to challenge a weaker rule, because it’s easy to prove and and you will not gain much knowledge from it.
Another way could be to challenge a rule after the game has already ended. If you lost a game you could challenge a certain rule and go back to to that gamestate and your opponent has to prove that it’s possible to score. If your opponent can prove it’s possible to score, he wins the game, if not, you win the game.
The win is decided by who scores more points or who reaches a certain amount of points first. Anything related to scoring points might be decided beforehand, because it could be to easy to exploit. If your rule breaks the game or crashes it, you lose.
Anything that doesn’t end the game or makes it impossible for one or both sides to win in a certain amount of time results in a loss for both parties. If there is a conflict that requires a third party to resolve it, you could also just count it as loss for both parties. To prevent exploitation of this rule you can just count a loss of this kind double, so it counts as as 2 losses instead of 1. It’s better to lose by playing normally instead of losing by disqualifaction.
I imagine this as some kind of league, where many different kind of AIs are competing against each other and they don’t know who they play against. So if the first place plays against the second place, they don’t know who their opponent is, otherwise the first place might consider a double loss to stay in the first place.
I’m not familar with that game.
In the case your opponent challenges it just to gain knowledge on how to play better around the rule, you could just increase the points he would lose. Instead of 1 it could be 3 or more. Also there isn’t really a point to challenge a weaker rule, because it’s easy to prove and and you will not gain much knowledge from it.
Another way could be to challenge a rule after the game has already ended. If you lost a game you could challenge a certain rule and go back to to that gamestate and your opponent has to prove that it’s possible to score. If your opponent can prove it’s possible to score, he wins the game, if not, you win the game.
The win is decided by who scores more points or who reaches a certain amount of points first. Anything related to scoring points might be decided beforehand, because it could be to easy to exploit. If your rule breaks the game or crashes it, you lose.
Anything that doesn’t end the game or makes it impossible for one or both sides to win in a certain amount of time results in a loss for both parties. If there is a conflict that requires a third party to resolve it, you could also just count it as loss for both parties. To prevent exploitation of this rule you can just count a loss of this kind double, so it counts as as 2 losses instead of 1. It’s better to lose by playing normally instead of losing by disqualifaction.
I imagine this as some kind of league, where many different kind of AIs are competing against each other and they don’t know who they play against. So if the first place plays against the second place, they don’t know who their opponent is, otherwise the first place might consider a double loss to stay in the first place.