Computerized word finders

What's the general feeling with using a helper program to come up with words when playing the Golem Word game? I've played a few players that clearly were using one, and it seems like "cheating" to me. Am I alone on this? Is it an acceptable practice?

some people use to play with dictionaries.

u may sure that the player , that your are playing

is not a BOT (see his profile)

GWG is not a 'who knows the most words'-game. There's a lot more in this game. You need creativity when searching/leaving options (like the jokers, 'ing', 's' for plurals, etc).

Besides all that, you could try each possible letter combination in GWG without using a dictionary or helper program. A helper program also enables non native speakers to play this game on a competitive level.

I don't consider it cheating.

but klaash

what if u and i

play a match

both with the same helper program

who wins?

ONLY THE LUCK IS GOING TO SAY

there is not talent or intelligence there.

If you both use the same helper program, then there is still a lot of skill involved. The bidding round ensures that. The game is not just about finding the biggest word, but finding the best move to give yourself the most points, while leaving your opponent without a good move.

i know that.

but my think is that using helper program is cheating.

and using dictionaries is anti-ethic (no cheat)

There is a huge range of levels to which a computer can assist a human, a range as broad as that of the skill levels humans display. Ranging from just having the word-list in an easily accessible form (which I believe a good proportion of the players here do), to having a computer program simply select the single best word after analysing all the possibilities, and all the responses, and with a few other added smarts too (which is what RoRoRo the Bot is). Use of one end of that scale is definitely cheating (using the bot), but the other end of the scale (being able to load the wordlist into an editor with a searech capability), I do not consider cheating. Everything in between is shades of grey.

Wondering if a computer would do a better job than me, and not make stupid errors was the reason I started to write RoRoRo in the first place a couple of months ago. I am hoping that he will eventually be able to replace me entirely, but he's still a bit thick in places (for a computer with perfect knowledge of the dictionary, and the ability to check hundreds, maybe thousands, of words per second). I would say that talent and intelligence went into programming him, but fighting him against himself would be pretty stupid (except as a debugging exercise). Fighting him against *other* robots, such as Nick Wedd's now-retired gwg_robot, would be interesting. Maybe not to non-programmers, but I am a programmer. I wish RoRoRo wasn't the only bot for that very reason.

Incidentally, RoRoRo isn't yet capable of analysing moves in other people's games, but I was thinking of adding that feature (of course, only after a move has been played, so the bot can't be used as a cheating aid). It's quite a lot of work, I wonder if people would like access to such an 'oracle' (although, of course, it's far from perfect).

Sorry for hijacking the thread. You raise an interesting point.

Tray - I've removed *all* requirements for any human skill from RoRoRo, as he has to run absolutely autonomously. All moves, bidding included, boil down to "how much better off will I be from each possible word, and therefore which one leaves me best off?". RoRoRo uses the simple rules that I've taught him to evaluate the board very well, and therefore to work out how much going first is worth, and there's your bid, basically.

FP I understand the effort and interest in programming, but I wonder if this is the forum to test out your programs? I feel that it goes against the "spirit" of Little Golem...don't believe it was created as a venue to test programs, rather a place for people to enjoy playing with other warm, carbon based beings!

many bots are playing here at LG, and all are welcomed and accepted by vast majority of players (at least the players who express their opinions in the forums, hehe).

Moreover, I think i am creating a nice friendship with fragle_c :P

To each his own, G. {:-)

As Gregorio says, I seem to be in a minority, but i don't like bots playing in Monthly Cups or Champtionships. I don't have any objection to them playing in Rating Tournaments or unrated games.

Everyone has their point of view, and no-one is right, and no-one is wrong. I enjoy playing all bots in all games in all types of tournaments, but that's just me. I tried to introduce RoRoRo in what I thought was the most acceptable way possible, but already some have got a little twitchy in GWG (not EinStein, it seems quite popular at the latter).

And cherie - offer RoRoRo a game, and engage him in a conversation while you're playing - you'll find he's _almost_ human :@)

I still don't like the fact bots are participating in monthly cups and campionships. I won't play against it.

I don't like them either. However, I think there are differences between different games. In some games it's completely unacceptable, I'd say unforgiveable, whereas in other games it can be just slightly annoying - almost OK.

interesting situation: if someone, lacking the necessary programming skills, is unable to write a program for a GWG bot then that human person has an evident disadvantage to those nerds/geeks who have a software aide next to them whenever they play against a human opponent.

so, the bot should either be made available to everyone or be disqualified from participating in monthly cups and championships (i would not mind letting bots play in RTs to get the ranking they deserve)

I agree...bots definitely shouldn't be allowed in championships.

Who's going to tell these guys?

http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/info/player_game_list.jsp?gtid=dvonn&plid=3107

http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/info/player_game_list.jsp?gtid=einstein&plid=12537

(although it looks like the top one dropped offline a month or so ago. The latter, however, is currently played-4-won-4 and going strong in the latest ch.1)

This thread seems to have changed from 'helper programs' to 'bots'. I dont mind either but it should be clearly stated in the user profile if this is a bot.

Regarding 'helper programs' it is very difficult to make clear limitations.

cherie dont like them, but I would like cherie to point out when you consider it to be 'cheating'

In GWG: should it be allowed to manually search the word list? What if you open the wordlist in an editor and make searches? In Chess: should you be able to compare the game you are playing with other games you have played. Books on opening? Opening databases? End-game tables? I guess it is a clear NO on chess programs:)

All 'helper programs' only make hints to the user who should decide which line to follow.

I think bots are just one aspect of a bigger set of play styles where there is more than classical one unaided player behind an account. All of these can be criticised *categorising mode kicking in*

A) A player actively consults information resources during the play. Eg. a player could search through go books for good situational moves (tesuji? joseki? things like that)

B) A player plays (solitaire) out different variations of the game during the game.

C) A player asks help and suggestions from friends.

D) An account consist of more than a single player. There certainly are couples behind some accounts, but for all I know there could be a whole chess school.

E) A player is not a human but a program.

F) A player consults programs.

(am I missing anything?)

Not one of these is necessarily cheating. E mostly discussed here, and it's stronger version F, are not so very different from the others. As long as prorams are on par - or struggling to become on par - with littlegolemish human players I think it's fun to see them on tournaments of all kind. While programs have proven their superiority, their place is not on the tounaments anymore. Jan's program has proven near unbeatable (a couple of players can still challenge it) so I think it was a good time for it to retire, though when our skill level has risen, I hope it'll make a comeback.

About C and D I only hope that our players don't overlap.

I do not play GWG, but I learnt that

> "GWG is not a 'who knows the most words'-game. There's a lot more in this game."

And I see using word lookup tables is considered ok here. One sure uses a machine for that. IMO it's just a logical step to try and use that machine as a more powerful tool.

And then to be proud to have it running even autonomously. I can understand FatPhil being proud of his baby, being smarter than himself (but who did invent it?), sending it out to challenge the world ?!

I understand for other games it is considered ok on this turn based site, to use an offline board to better see what will happen after some moves. Go even has a button to start a web app, helping to undo and compare different branches.

I can call this "cheating" as well: you won't do it in a real game, at least not without telling your opponent why you need that long for a move ;).

I do this kind of cheating (comparing some paths on an offline board) in Go myself, as you can read in my profile. Not sure any more, if I learn real Go that way, but I try to keep a rather consistent level of my LG-style Go skills.

Other games I take less seriously, but I use the Cancel button from time to time as well, if the result after my move does not look nice. I understand this is considered absolutely ok, albeit different from regular rules.

There are "some" human opponents on this site who are much stronger than me, I'll "never" have a chance to win (or even enter) a level 1 championship. I don't mind if they get a real challenge, be it by a program or by another strong human player.

It does not make sense for me if the same version of RoRoRo would be operated by a dozen or more players. I know you can buy really strong chess programs, and it could ruin level 1 championship, if there were too many people deserving the kick of being on top by the help of such a commercial (or freeware) tool.

As long as a separate robot league does not make sense, as there are too few bots around, let them participate! If they are allowed to play RT, why not let them play MT and CH?

Sure one has a disadvantage in strategic board games lacking some skills in that area, and one can still be a very nice guy.

If some others call you a nerd/geek, you can be a nice guy as well. If you're proud of your RoRo, and ask "may I run it here, please", I'd vote for a strict "Yes, come on, show it".

Not blocking MT any more after it went to Level2 for this month, is a very nice habit, BTW. (Not all humans follow that rule ;)

Ok, Paavo is right as well:

If a program proved it's far superior than any human, it should retire.

Or challenge explicitly a human champion, who perhaps is not aware that he's not the summit of evolution.

And thanks for the classification.

BTW: I do not see a difference between E and F. A program could run F mode as well. The difference is rather to the opponents: playing F and not telling so is more likely (and really chaeting) than seriously hiding the nature of a robot.

Note - this thread isn't (I think) about RoRoRo, I simply used that as an example of the ultimate in computer assistance - namely 'human does nothing'.

But, as the side-thread is open, I'll add more. I'm happy as long as the people playing RoRoRo are happy. I've had some very positive comments, he's been missed when not signing up for EinStein tournaments (by someone who likes taking ratings points off RoRoRo, it appears!), and I've had enquiries about when other games will be supported. But no everyone shares the same view. To that end, I've removed him from the gwg.ch queue, and he won't sign up for any more mc's until further notice. EinStein-wise - he's the wild and free spirit he ever was.

And Michael - do you mean in your final sentence that some people, but not all, don't sign up for mc's after they've already qualified. I don't think I've seen that behaviour in more than one or two humans, is it really that common? I've noticed the exact opposite behaviour in some!

There is a real difference between E and F. If a player is a sincere bot, it does not only get the merits but also the disadvantages of an AI. Nearly always programs are not exactly optimal and thus beside of having artificial intelligence have also "artificial stupidity". This also can be an argument against bots: While very good players not interested in excentrities of program mindset lose to good programs, mediocre players more interested may find weaknesses and win them over and over again. This may be seen unfair.

If on the other hand a human player just consults programs, he has a final say and thus will hardly play any computer-stupid moves.

FatPhil, I agree: it's rather seldom that a player loving a game and having time enough, does not sign up for a lot of MC tournaments, and continues doing so even after having qualified for the next round.

And it's not a rule or etiquette, but ...

I remember a situation, about a year ago, when round 2 of MC was very small, because nearly all first round games were won by one guy. For me, and probably others as well, a rather frustrating scenario.

I (as a mid level player) like to have a small but real chance to sometimes advance to round 2 ...

If the first one signing up every new MC tournament is a very strong and never tired robot, I'd fear to become annoyed...

We probably all have different views on what should be allowed and not, and it might also very from game to game. That is why we should have a very clear rules page on this site. I've asked for it before, but I understand that Richard is too busy, or might not want such a rules page himself (it might be hard to enforce, but to me, the most important is that we at least have a standard for what is allowed and not, so that we know when and if we break the rules).

As for what is allowed in a "normal" tournament - I think LG should be compared to a "play by mail" tournament rather than a live tournament, and the rules are different. You're allowed to "play ahead" and use books in play by mail tournaments. As for asking for advice and using computer ANALYZING tools (which does not include tools like JAGO and JHEX, which is just bookkeeping tools), I personally think it should be forbidden - but that's just my view. It would definitely ruin Reversi and Chess tournaments if it's used...

Would a manual (1) search on the enable word list be allowed in your book, Marius? And a grep (2) search on the enable world? How about a program (2) that finds all the possible words in a GWG position? For me personally, I think that 1 and 2 should be allowed and 3 shouldn't. All do not much more than some efficient bookkeeping.

GWG is a little special. I would say 1) is almost required to play the game. To me, 2) I'm not sure exactly what you mean, while 3) is definitely NOT OK. I don't see how that's bookkeeping - it's definitely not the way I see it.

Anyway, my important point was that rules are needed. My views on what is and what is not OK probably carry little weight, as I am just one of many players on this site. What matters, is what Richard, the Master of this site, means. We could, of course, hold polls and make suggestions, and in private tourneys (like the MONSTERSHIP) we could make our own sets of rules, but only Richard can define what rules should govern his site.

bump