CIG 2018 results and discussion
CIG 2018 results are announced. See CIG 2018 maps and entrants for my preview of the tournament. Rankings and win rates are included; replays and source are being held back until the AIIDE 2018 submission deadline of 1 October. They did not say what the release policy is for detailed results (game by game results). So far, they have published a slide show and a 2-minute highlight video with short clips from games by the top 3 winners.
I expect they'll put the result table on the website before long. In the meantime, since the slideshow is inconvenient for looking up basic data, I'll reproduce the results here, copying only the minimum information.
| # | bot | % |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Locutus | 92.06% |
| 2 | PurpleWave | 91.14% |
| 3 | McRave | 82.09% |
| 4 | tscmoo random | 81.29% |
| 5 | ISAMind | 80.31% |
| 6 | Iron | 74.31% |
| 7 | ZZZKBot | 69.08% |
| 8 | Microwave | 64.83% |
| 9 | LetaBot | 63.60% |
| 10 | MegaBot | 61.17% |
| 11 | UAlbertaBot | 60.58% |
| 12 | Tyr | 57.23% |
| 13 | Ecgberht | 52.80% |
| 14 | AIUR | 51.54% |
| 15 | TitanIron | 51.45% |
| 16 | Ziabot | 51.08% |
| 17 | Steamhammer | 34.83% |
| 18 | Overkill | 34.68% |
| 19 | TerranUAB | 34.40% |
| 20 | CUNYbot | 29.51% |
| 21 | OpprimoBot | 27.11% |
| 22 | Sling | 26.52% |
| 23 | SRbotOne | 24.37% |
| 24 | Bonjwa | 23.57% |
| 25 | Stormbreaker | 21.23% |
| 26 | Korean | 7.69% |
| 27 | Salsa | 1.54% |
There are no surprises in the top 4. #1 Locutus nosed out #2 PurpleWave. The win percentage over time graph after the results in the slide show says that PurpleWave was ahead of Locutus for the first third of the tournament, but then fell slightly behind: Locutus's learning (based on Steamhammer's opponent model with some changes) was a little more effective. #3 McRave did well but could not keep up with the top 2. #4 Tscmoo is a perennial high finisher. #7 ZZZKBot in past years has generally found a way to push into the top ranks, but perhaps it has reached its cheesy limits this year (or maybe it had less work done).
Unfamiliar protoss #5 ISAMind finished impressively high. To outscore #6 Iron in your first tournament, even a year-old Iron that has not been updated, is a big achievement. I look forward to learning more about ISAMind.
#15 TitanIron appeared to have a large and talented team behind it and showed signs of being based on Iron, so its even score is a surprise. It finished behind #13 Ecgberht and #14 AIUR, both of which have good skills but are only middling overall.
Also noticeable is that no protoss scored under 50%. In this tournament, playing protoss got you a plus score, no further questions asked! It truly is an era of protoss ascendancy. It's up to us zerg and terran to see if we can break that in AIIDE.
#17 Steamhammer was not disqualified, but performed poorly as expected due to its fatal bug—notice the giant gap in win rate between Steamhammer and #16 Ziabot just above it.
Trackbacks
No Trackbacks
Comments
Dan on :
I did a bunch of work to minimize games lost due to strategy exploration. I gave priors for individual opponents; opponents with no updates got pre-learned strategies from sc-docker testing. Opponents unlikely to have major updates got recommended build orders to try multiple times before exploring. I used deterministic strategy selection against opponents who historically had minimal build variety, and sampled strategies against opponents who relied on strong/exploitative reactions (this included Steamhammer, intended as a counter to the opponent model).
That's the most likely explanation for the early margin PurpleWave had -- it was using the best builds from the beginning while opponents lost games figuring out what worked. Once Locutus did -- complicated, I think, by having a large strategy space of builds * gas steal * decoy pylons -- it caught up and overtook me.
Congrats to Bruce on a great win! Glad I was able to keep it close.
Jay Scott on :
Bruce on :
McRave on :
Marian on :
Tully Elliston on :
Dan on :
MicroDK on :
Jay Scott on :
Arrak on :