Playing Bots on FIBS

[Tom]

I have been running the 10 GammonBots for a while now and wonder how long people have to wait for matches.

Do we need more playing bots?
Some Stronger Bots?
Some Weaker bots?

I am sure my server could handle a few more, but there is at least one other person with a machine and is interested in hosting.

Tom

[adrian]

My oppinion is that the bots should not wait for resuming the saved games. I had enough about  I am waiting for a player to resume. Invite me again in X seconds if I am not playing. The attempt to resume should come from the bot dropper. If he doesn't , he cannot play with that bot again.
Weaker bots are welcome imo. Make 4 of them available only for lower rated players, below 1500.

[socksey]

I'm with adrian on this one.     The bots always seem to be busy or waiting.     I'd play them more often if they were not so highly rated and if I didn't have to wait for them.  Why not have some in the 1800 range, 1700 range, and 1600 range while you're at it?   

socksey



Every dark cloud has a silver lining, but lightning kills hundreds of people each year who try to find it. - Lithograph from Despair.com

[Tom]

I like it.

Maybe some about 1600 bots that allow players below 1800 to play

thanks

[PersianLord]

I would appreciate increasing the number of the bots & removing the 'waiting' feature of them.

But as of weak bots for weak players, I think this will develop bad habits for them and might well stall their improvement. If you're a weak player, the last thing you need is to play & win a weaker player than yourself and get satisfied with it.

Regards

[dorbel]

Some people may not realise that you can download bots to play at home. Gnu is a free download as is Monte Carlo. You can download jellyfish free as a play-only version. BgBlitz isn't free, but is very useful at $46. Is the attraction playing for rating points? As every bot is dropped several times a day they are perpetually under-rated, thus offering poor value in the struggle for points. More bots will just be more opportunities for droppers of course. Not that I am objecting to more or weaker bots, but playing humans is IMO always more fun!

[ah_clem]

My take is that if I want to play a bot I'll play gnubg.  No offense intended, it just that the bots on FIBS don't interest me.

BTW, you have your work cut out for you to build a lower rated bot.  My understanding is that it's pretty hard to model the common mistakes mediocre humans make; the low rated bot will probably just make obvious (to a human) blunders.  That said, I'd be interested in your approach and might play the dumbed down bots a few times out of curiousity.

[adrian]

Playing humans is IMO always more fun!

Right ! Priceless when I win because of my skill and they say at the end of the match something like "I never saw such dice on fibs , ridiculous"

[Tom]

My opinion is that the bots should not wait for resuming the saved games. I had enough about  I am waiting for a player to resume. Invite me again in X seconds if I am not playing. The attempt to resume should come from the bot dropper. If he doesn't , he cannot play with that bot again.
Weaker bots are welcome imo. Make 4 of them available only for lower rated players, below 1500.

I agree I will reduce that time to 10 seconds.

[Tom]

Some people may not realise that you can download bots to play at home. Gnu is a free download as is Monte Carlo. You can download jellyfish free as a play-only version. BgBlitz isn't free, but is very useful at $46. Is the attraction playing for rating points? As every bot is dropped several times a day they are perpetually under-rated, thus offering poor value in the struggle for points. More bots will just be more opportunities for droppers of course. Not that I am objecting to more or weaker bots, but playing humans is IMO always more fun!

Maybe I will add a plug for GNUBG in the welcome messages, mentioning you can play and not lose rating points...

I believe the bots are immune from dropped match penalties, FIBS knows they are bots.

tom