AIIDE 2020 - BananaBrain versus Dragon
Of the 4 bots I’m prepared to run this analysis on, this is the only pairing involving Dragon. Dragon did not record all 150 games against either McRave or Microwave. Like yesterday, all win rates and coloring are from the point of view of BananaBrain: Blue is good for BananaBrain, red is good for Dragon.
bananabrain strategies versus dragon strategies
| overall | 1rax fe | 2rax bio | 2rax mech | bio | dirty worker rush | mass vulture | siege expand | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| overall | 67/150 45% | 6/14 43% | 6/11 55% | 8/15 53% | 15/37 41% | 3/3 100% | 22/56 39% | 7/14 50% |
| PvT_10/12gate | 12/17 71% | 2/3 67% | - | 2/3 67% | 4/4 100% | - | 3/6 50% | 1/1 100% |
| PvT_10/15gate | 5/12 42% | - | 2/2 100% | 1/5 20% | 1/3 33% | - | 1/2 50% | - |
| PvT_12nexus | 1/8 12% | 1/2 50% | - | - | 0/1 0% | - | 0/3 0% | 0/2 0% |
| PvT_1gatedtexpo | 3/7 43% | 1/2 50% | - | - | 0/1 0% | - | 2/4 50% | - |
| PvT_1gatereaver | 0/5 0% | - | 0/1 0% | - | 0/2 0% | - | 0/2 0% | - |
| PvT_28nexus | 5/11 45% | 0/2 0% | 0/1 0% | 0/2 0% | 1/1 100% | - | 4/5 80% | - |
| PvT_2gatedt | 3/9 33% | 0/1 0% | - | 1/1 100% | 0/2 0% | - | 0/3 0% | 2/2 100% |
| PvT_2gaterngexpo | 2/7 29% | - | 0/1 0% | - | 1/1 100% | 1/1 100% | 0/4 0% | - |
| PvT_32nexus | 2/8 25% | - | - | - | 1/4 25% | 1/1 100% | 0/2 0% | 0/1 0% |
| PvT_9/9gate | 14/18 78% | - | 2/3 67% | - | 4/4 100% | 1/1 100% | 7/9 78% | 0/1 0% |
| PvT_9/9proxygate | 8/14 57% | 1/1 100% | 1/1 100% | 3/3 100% | 0/2 0% | - | 2/6 33% | 1/1 100% |
| PvT_bulldog | 0/6 0% | 0/1 0% | - | - | 0/3 0% | - | 0/1 0% | 0/1 0% |
| PvT_dtdrop | 2/8 25% | - | 1/1 100% | - | 0/4 0% | - | 1/2 50% | 0/1 0% |
| PvT_proxydt | 10/14 71% | 1/1 100% | - | 1/1 100% | 3/3 100% | - | 2/5 40% | 3/4 75% |
| PvT_stove | 0/6 0% | 0/1 0% | 0/1 0% | - | 0/2 0% | - | 0/2 0% | - |
Not one table cell has more than 9 games in it. Neither bot successfully predicted what the other would play, if it even tried: BananaBrain is unpredictable and Dragon changes its choice frequently when losing, and besides BananaBrain is poor at recognizing terran plans. So the strategy x strategy cross is a hash. To me the table means that, at least for this pairing, reactions during the game were more important than the initial choice of strategy. Neither side had a way to choose a counter beforehand.
bananabrain as seen by dragon
Dragon does not record a recognized opponent strategy. Its history files have only its own strategy and whether it won.
dragon as seen by bananabrain
| dragon played | # | bananabrain recognized |
|---|---|---|
| 1rax fe | 14 | 13 T_unknown | 1 T_fastexpand |
| 2rax bio | 11 | 8 T_unknown | 2 T_fastexpand | 1 T_1fac |
| 2rax mech | 15 | 14 T_unknown | 1 T_1fac |
| bio | 37 | 35 T_unknown | 1 T_1fac | 1 T_fastexpand |
| dirty worker rush | 3 | 3 T_unknown |
| mass vulture | 56 | 30 T_1fac | 26 T_unknown |
| siege expand | 14 | 9 T_unknown | 5 T_1fac |
We knew that BananaBrain struggles to recognize terran strategies. Maybe the author has not spent effort on it because it doesn’t affect results much? In any case, given how Dragon plays, with its love of fast expansions and mixed tech, the terran builds that are recognized probably represent truths about the games. It’s not clear that they are helpful truths, though, because they say so little about what happened.
From the coloring, it looks as though there was little relationship between whether BananaBrain recognized Dragon’s build and whether BananaBrain won. That is consistent with the theory that the author decided it didn’t matter.
Trackbacks
No Trackbacks
Comments