| Author | Message | ||
| Ingrid Lael (Ingridlael)
|
Hi again..., I'm having some problems with the "repetition" goal. The thing is that no matter if I declare it as a loss, Zillions still reports it as a draw. Thank you in advance for any insight you care to share, since this deffinitely beats me. Cheers... ...Ingrid. PS: Is there a way (without reverting to a random player checking conditions "by hand") to make Zillions report both repetitions AND stalemates as losses?? | ||
| Ingrid Lael (Ingridlael)
|
Hmmm.....still having some problems with this, although I dug up the discussion board a little more thorougly now and came to find that there are some quirks with pass-partial set to false and things like that... Anyway, my original question still stands: does anyone deeply know how the "repetition" goal acts? I mean, is it "reliable" (does Zillions always check this kind of things "correctly")? I'm not changing any dummy piece's attributes or anything like that, so I was hoping it would work as expected. The second (PS) question still stands too: I could have (yet another) random player check the board for stalemates and place some piece on a dummy position and declare that a loss for the stalemated player (with absolute-config); anyway, I was hoping there was a simpler way of dealing with this sort of things before turning to such a pita approach... Well, sorry for any inconvenience and annoyance on my part. Cheers... ...Ingrid PS: one more thing...I actually have around five random players for a two player game (a complicated one), I'm sure this kind of things seriously cripple Zillion's AI, but I guess I'll try to have it working before having it play reasonably well; the thing is that when the AI starts "thinking" there's some sort of "lag" before it actually starts to generate moves (at least this is what I can see in the progress bar), does anyone know what this means or what could be the cause? (note: I actually have 438 positions, 80 piece definitions, 23 zones, 70 directions, 8 flags, 6 position flags and 23 piece attributes; I'm pretty sure that the position flags are a drag to the AI, specially with 438 positions, and could be changed to something "kinder" to it). Any help whatsoever on this subject will be greatly appreciated!  | ||
| Ingrid Lael (Ingridlael)
|
OK, so, I feel like a schizo still posting here, but anyway... I actually solved the issue, maybe it's a nuisance for everyone around here, maybe not, but i had some pretty hard time with it. So, here it goes: 1) It seems like Zillions is quite picky about some things, esp. order of blocks. For instance: you can only define ONE "dummy" block inside your "board" block, if you have more then he will only pay attenction to one of them (I don't recall if it was the first or the second one). In my particular case, it turns out that Zillions won't allow a player to have more than one "goal" associated with the same conditio: you can't have both (loss-condition (Black White) stalemated) (loss-condition (Black White) repetition) So it was reporting correctly, just that we didn't agree on what did "correctly" mean ;) 2) Another interesting thing is that when using random players (bots) Zillions seems to think that if a random player losses, as this makes no sense, then it must have been the last "real" player the one who is supposed to lose. Oddly enough, this is not the case for winning conditions, since zillions will joyfully report "3-Time Repetition: ?Helper wins!". So my particular problem got solved like this (I was already using a random player, but you can always create a dummy position offboard and give the random player a dummy piece whose only move is a bare "add"): (loss-condition (Black White) stalemated) (loss-condition (?Helper1 ?Helper2) repetition) and turn order goes: (turn-order White ?Helper1 ?Helper2 Black ?Helper1 ?Helper2) Hope this helps someone else, I most certainly wish I would have found something like this a couple of weeks ago (maybe I would have slept better). Cheers... ...Ingrid | ||
| Sean Duggan (Dream)
|
I'm sorry. Somehow I entirely missed your message. Thank you for posting your solution. I'm sure that someone else will find it helpful. |