🚀 go-pugleaf

> 
> I have had a request about the Valentine tournament.  With Winter upon us
> and little else to do (now that the inauguration is over and the SuperBowl
> nearly past), someone may wish to revive the tournament.  Unfortunately,
> I am not currently in a position to do so.
>

This looks like a natural spinoff for King of the Hill.  Like this:

    1. Everyone submits a warrior (by deadline)
    2. Program assigns round-1 opponents
    3. Program runs round-1 battles.
    4. Program assigns round-2 opponents in winner/loser brackets
    5. Program sends the participants their status and their
       previous and next opponents' last warrior code.
    6. Everyone (who is still in) submits a warrior (by deadline)
    .
    .  repeat 2-6 until there is only one participant left
    .

Of course if a participant does not submit a new warrior, his old
one is used.

Unfortunately I only have indirect access to Unix (for NEWS) and
can't offer to help.

Paul Kline
pk6811s@acad.drake.edu

In article <1993Jan25.135608.1@acad.drake.edu> pk6811s@acad.drake.edu writes:
>> 
>> I have had a request about the Valentine tournament.  With Winter upon us
>> and little else to do (now that the inauguration is over and the SuperBowl
>> nearly past), someone may wish to revive the tournament.  Unfortunately,
>> I am not currently in a position to do so.
>>
>
>This looks like a natural spinoff for King of the Hill.  Like this:
>
>    1. Everyone submits a warrior (by deadline)
>    2. Program assigns round-1 opponents
>    3. Program runs round-1 battles.
>    4. Program assigns round-2 opponents in winner/loser brackets
>    5. Program sends the participants their status and their
>       previous and next opponents' last warrior code.
>    6. Everyone (who is still in) submits a warrior (by deadline)
>    .
>    .  repeat 2-6 until there is only one participant left
>    .
>
>Of course if a participant does not submit a new warrior, his old
>one is used.

I am thinking about setting up such a beast.  There would be several
styles of tournaments that could be used, including the double-elimination
and the round robin that we are all so used to.  

I have currently two ways of setting it up... the KotH style which means
watching mail... or the server way, where you can telnet to it and 
actually interact with it... (which has lots of advantages, but of 
course is available to less people).  I will probably set up both
types, since there is no reason why I should be limited to just
one or the other.

I have been writing away at tournament software stuff for the corewar
game and have had pretty good success.  It would be very interesting
to try it out in the "real world"... :-)

Scott Adkins
sadkins@ohiou.edu

-- 
         Scott W. Adkins           Internet: sadkins@ohiou.edu
         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                     ak323@cleveland.freenet.edu
    Ohio University of Athens        Bitnet: adkins@ouaccvma.bitnet

pk6811s@acad.drake.edu writes:

>> 
>> I have had a request about the Valentine tournament.  With Winter upon us
>> and little else to do (now that the inauguration is over and the SuperBowl
>> nearly past), someone may wish to revive the tournament.  Unfortunately,
>> I am not currently in a position to do so.
>>

>This looks like a natural spinoff for King of the Hill.  Like this:

>    1. Everyone submits a warrior (by deadline)
>    2. Program assigns round-1 opponents
>    3. Program runs round-1 battles.
>    4. Program assigns round-2 opponents in winner/loser brackets
>    5. Program sends the participants their status and their
>       previous and next opponents' last warrior code.
>    6. Everyone (who is still in) submits a warrior (by deadline)
>    .
>    .  repeat 2-6 until there is only one participant left
>    .

	If the emphasis of the contest was to be on authors, rather than
programmers, it might be a worth informing contestants of their next
opponent before warriors are submitted (i.e. swap rounds 1 & 2),to 
heighten the "psychological warfare" aspect. Alternatively, if people
were to submit an "army" of warriors (say 3, or 4) at the beginning of
the contest,  each of which they were only allowed to use twice during
the ensuing rounds, then the accent would again be on overall
performance, but the pace of the tournament would be faster.
	Obviously, the latter suggestion would rely on competitors 
submitting genuinely different warriors, and might therefore be deemed
unimplementable. Even worse, neither suggestion solves the essential
problem of who would hold the competition - unfortunately I'm way to
busy at the moment...
	Si.


 


-- 
S.A.Hovell,Dept. Electrical Engineering,University of Edinburgh,U.K.
(+31) 650-5655	 			          (Juggler@ed.ac.uk) 
-----					         	       -----

In article <30827@castle.ed.ac.uk> sah@castle.ed.ac.uk (Juggler) writes:
>pk6811s@acad.drake.edu writes:
>
>	If the emphasis of the contest was to be on authors, rather than
>programmers, it might be a worth informing contestants of their next
>opponent before warriors are submitted (i.e. swap rounds 1 & 2),to 
>heighten the "psychological warfare" aspect. 

I think that when the emphasis is on authors, this is the *best* kind
of tournament (double-elimination) where each author gets notified 
who the next opponent is going to be.  Unfortunately, this can be a
little time consuming, not for the tournament director, but for all
of the participants who prepare for their next opponent, as well as 
time consuming considering how much time the whole tournament will
last.  But still, I like it.

>                                             Alternatively, if people
>were to submit an "army" of warriors (say 3, or 4) at the beginning of
>the contest,  each of which they were only allowed to use twice during
>the ensuing rounds, then the accent would again be on overall
>performance, but the pace of the tournament would be faster.

Would they get to choose which of the warriors in the army would get
to fight in any particular round?  Or would it be random and chosen
by either the tounament director or the program (this would be real
easy to implement in my corewar package)?

>	Obviously, the latter suggestion would rely on competitors 
>submitting genuinely different warriors, and might therefore be deemed
>unimplementable.

I am not sure what you mean unimplementable.  If you mean programming
it, I think this is just as easy as any other method (like I said, I
can implement this in my corewar package pretty easily).  Do you mean
practical?  And if so, do you mean for the people submitting the warriors
in the first place?  

>                 Even worse, neither suggestion solves the essential
>problem of who would hold the competition - unfortunately I'm way to
>busy at the moment...

Well, I have sent mail to Mark about volunteering for finishing the 
Valentine Tournament.  I would also be happy to conduct tournaments
from time to time...  I think we can experiment with different formats
just like KotH experiments with various things as well.  I could even
set up my tournament software to run via mail and sockets (telnet)...
I would enjoy doing all of this greatly :-)

Well, until next time... 
Scott :-)
-- 
         Scott W. Adkins           Internet: sadkins@ohiou.edu
         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                     ak323@cleveland.freenet.edu
    Ohio University of Athens        Bitnet: adkins@ouaccvma.bitnet