Blotto - Ram vs RM

Starting board is a bit different here. We have an odd number of zones to hopefully make ties less likely (obviously still possible to tie) and more blank starting zones.

All other rules are standard for 1 v 1's we have had so far. Ten rounds, diminishing reinforcements per round, etc.

Let's make RM red and Ram blue. PM me your first round of ten deployments when ready.

why does one player have 1 more than the other player?

Because I uploaded the wrong image. Should be fixed now.

Moves are in:

Next round allows NINE shapes for deployment. Send in your moves when ready.

I’m away from my laptop right now. Will be 30 minutes. 

I am 95% at this point RM lost; I mean to call it last round. I can even explain the specific move that lost the match.

Take your time.

Here’s my prediction.

1.) DeepBrown has a +1 advantage in the Center 5 zones. And it will remain that way.

2.) As Zone 1 and zone 7 go each way; that means that RM will likely draw 4 lose 1 zone in the Center, and lose 2:1 / 3:2 / 4:3 best case depending solely on luck. 

3.) DeepBrown spreads armies out evenly; so won’t ever place armies on zone to give a result greater than +2; meaning that those Center 5 zones will always be +1; gaurenteing deep brown wins 1 more Center zone than RM

4.) RM needs 3 to flip zone 7. If he does that; then then DeepBrown will simply be +3 in the middle 5, meaning a flip of zone 7 simply guarantee a matching flip in the Center. Which will not change the overall score.

cute

Zone 7 goes From +2 to +1; as RM plays one less army in the Center to play on zone 7, it simply swaps the +2 zone from zone 7 to one in the Center.

Moves are in:

Forgot to tag you guys, see above.

I thought his bot takes only 20 seconds maximum

Me thinking to check DebateArt, turning my computer on, logging in, seeing both players have submitted moves, editing paint, uploading the paint file to imgur, and posting the next round sometimes takes over 20 seconds.

Next round will update tomorrow morning. Sorry for any inconvenience.

there should be a time limit on moves

I agreed to challenge his bot as was described on the map we played before.

Not only did I concede to this new map, I even had a disadvantage at the start that made him and/or his bot calculate 95% assurance I lose.

He is now salty because I read his bot well based on what it did in the first three moves and now knows if he sticks to the bot's method I will probably tie, depending on the next move or even potentially win.

If he is allowed to rewrite his bot, I want a rematch from scratch. I intentionally overbet 2 spots to have 3 instead of +2 because I was ready to allow the bot to steal at least one spot from me at the start creating inequality where it couldn't perfectly allocate points based on its algorithm as it needed 1 more the next turn to sufficiently stick to its ethos. Then, I put 1 in his spot with 2 purely so that it guaranteed if his bot valued offense over defense I could lead both him and the bot into a false sense of security so that I could grab both +1s (whichever one it didn't cover).

If it alternatively had proven to value defense over offense, I'd have approached the next 2 rounds differently (the key to realising it valued offense was in the zone 6 that it left +1 in order to put into attack on the second round).

I used the Round 2-3 transition and to set myself up so that round 3-4 would reveal what the bot does when it actually has 1 too many, not too few, points to stick to its algorithm. It made my +2 shallow rather than tried to make any of its +2s extra reinforced, this gave another clue that I was going to exploit as things proceeded.

All of my 'mistakes' (trading short-term gain for long-term dominance over the bot) will amount to absolutely nothing if he rewrites the bot to adapt now. I wouldn't have played this the same if I was against a human being who perhaps will take a gamble at some point, I am against a bot who works on rigid efficiency and the rigidity has a flaw or 2 if one correctly approaches it.

I succeeded in shocking him and turning the tables, that's all my win condition was, personally. I knew I was against a bot, so I played it different. I would have 100% done what the bot did in turn 1 had I predicted that I'd be against a human who'd take a risk at some point and also who wouldn't have rigid patterns even if they played smart.

It was the same observational skills that allowed me to defeat Ilikepie5 after refusing to force a win in an earlier Round. He had a habit of protecting Zone 4 when under pressure that remained consistent to the end. I had safely tested if he did or didn't have this instinct, in previous rounds and that's why I put my final one into Zone 2.

If RMs this angry about it, we can rematch with deep brown next week

The bot made a wrong move last two rounds: because it isn’t applying a balancing factor correctly- it should be weighting certain moves as more preferable than it is given the number of zones needed to flip together with current maximums -  it’s losing the weighting because of tied maxima - that isn’t an issue on the 5/4/3/2/1 placements in the original: It has an issue with its move randomizer too; but that’s less of an issue. 

If RM is pooping his pants over this; we can call deep brown as a DNF here

the one pooping his pants is deep brown in the pants department and trying to recode it 

Y’all obsessed. Just play the game lol