CIG 2018 - what Overkill learned
After analyzing AIUR yesterday, I ran a similar (but much simpler) analysis for the classic zerg #18 Overkill. The version in CIG 2018 has not been updated since 2015 and is the same version that still plays on SSCAIT. In 2015 it was a sensation, placing 3rd in both CIG and AIIDE—its place of 18 in this tournament, with about 35% win rate, suggests huge progress over the past 3 years. But keep reading; Overkill appears to have been broken in this tournament. I did this analysis once before: See what Overkill learned in AIIDE 2015.
Classic Overkill knows 3 openings, a 9 pool opening which stays on one base for a good time, and 10- and 12-hatch openings to get mutalisks first. When it chooses 9 pool, that means that the opponent is either rushing (so the 9 pool is necessary to defend) or is being too greedy (which the 9 pool can exploit). Overkill counts some games twice in an attempt to learn faster, so sometimes its total game count is larger than the number of rounds in the tournament (125).
| NinePoolling | TenHatchMuta | TwelveHatchMuta | total | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| opponent | n | win | n | win | n | win | n | win |
| #1 Locutus | 42 | 0% | 42 | 0% | 41 | 0% | 125 | 0% |
| #2 PurpleWave | 43 | 0% | 43 | 0% | 42 | 0% | 128 | 0% |
| #3 McRave | 44 | 0% | 44 | 0% | 43 | 0% | 131 | 0% |
| #4 tscmoo | 40 | 0% | 40 | 0% | 47 | 2% | 127 | 1% |
| #5 ISAMind | 42 | 0% | 42 | 0% | 41 | 0% | 125 | 0% |
| #6 Iron | 54 | 7% | 32 | 0% | 39 | 3% | 125 | 4% |
| #7 ZZZKBot | 47 | 2% | 39 | 0% | 47 | 2% | 133 | 2% |
| #8 Microwave | 54 | 6% | 35 | 0% | 42 | 2% | 131 | 3% |
| #9 LetaBot | 52 | 6% | 33 | 0% | 40 | 2% | 125 | 3% |
| #10 MegaBot | 60 | 12% | 24 | 0% | 41 | 7% | 125 | 8% |
| #11 UAlbertaBot | 41 | 0% | 41 | 0% | 48 | 2% | 130 | 1% |
| #12 Tyr | 40 | 0% | 39 | 0% | 47 | 2% | 126 | 1% |
| #13 Ecgberht | 57 | 16% | 24 | 4% | 42 | 12% | 123 | 12% |
| #14 Aiur | 94 | 34% | 14 | 7% | 17 | 12% | 125 | 28% |
| #15 TitanIron | 36 | 11% | 20 | 0% | 69 | 16% | 125 | 12% |
| #16 Ziabot | 16 | 0% | 16 | 0% | 93 | 23% | 125 | 17% |
| #17 Steamhammer | 107 | 48% | 7 | 0% | 10 | 10% | 124 | 42% |
| #19 TerranUAB | 24 | 67% | 3 | 0% | 98 | 83% | 125 | 78% |
| #20 CUNYbot | 18 | 44% | 6 | 17% | 101 | 66% | 125 | 61% |
| #21 OpprimoBot | 36 | 67% | 3 | 0% | 86 | 76% | 125 | 71% |
| #22 Sling | 67 | 46% | 6 | 0% | 52 | 42% | 125 | 42% |
| #23 SRbotOne | 23 | 74% | 4 | 25% | 95 | 89% | 122 | 84% |
| #24 Bonjwa | 75 | 92% | 4 | 25% | 46 | 87% | 125 | 88% |
| #25 Stormbreaker | 70 | 91% | 2 | 0% | 53 | 87% | 125 | 88% |
| #26 Korean | 77 | 99% | 2 | 0% | 46 | 93% | 125 | 95% |
| #27 Salsa | 46 | 100% | 32 | 94% | 46 | 100% | 124 | 98% |
| total | 1305 | 36% | 597 | 6% | 1372 | 40% | 3274 | 32% |
The 10 hatch opening was useless in this tournament—against every opponent, 10 hatch was the worst choice, at best tying for 0. In 2015, 10 hatch was about as successful as the other openings.
Signs are that something was wrong with Overkill in this tournament. In AIIDE 2015, then #3 Overkill scored 23% against then #4 UAlbertaBot, 68% against #5 AIUR, and 99% against #17 OpprimoBot. In CIG 2018, it was 1.6% against UAlbertaBot, 28% against AIUR, 71% against OpprimoBot. All versions appear to be the same in both tournaments—I didn’t look closely, but I did unpack the sources and check dates (in particular, Overkill has file change dates up to 8 October 2015 in both tournaments). Overkill had 14 crash games in CIG 2018, not enough to account for the difference. It’s hard to believe that the maps could have shifted results that much.
Tomorrow: What went wrong with Overkill?
Trackbacks
No Trackbacks
Comments