Sections
Hills
Infinite Hills
Tournaments
Software
Evolving
Optimizer
Community
Newsletter
Discussion
History
Sections
 
For Beginners
First Steps
FAQ
Guides
Lexicon
Benchmarks
For Beginners
> Home > Tournaments > Corewar Single Elimination Championship 2005> Quarterfinal

Quarterfinal


Deadline: Saturday, November 12, 2005, 9pm CET


The Rules

Ok, after a quite hard second round I decided to make it a bit smoother using a well known parameter set. This time it's under the 94nop hill rule except the max. warrior length is just 50. P-space is allowed this time, but you have to share the same p-space than your opponent using PIN 13. To force you for agressive strategies the scoring scheme will be Win: 1 Point; Tie: 0 Points, Lose: 0 Points.

The parameter setting are:

Coresize8000
max. Cycles80000
max. Processes8000
max. Warrior Length50
min. Distance50
p-spaceallowed, but must share the same PIN 13
Rounds1000


The commands for pmars is:

pmars -s 8000 -c 80000 -p 8000 -l 50 -d 50 -r 1000 -= "(W-1)/S"


Fixtures and Results

Well, I can't put you off the scent because you all see through the scoring scheme;-) I thought I would see more p-spacer, but it looks that the max. warrior length of 50 wasn't enough for you to consider it.


el kauka vs. Roy van Rijn


Fizmo's Comment


Roy seems the clear favourite in this match. Let's see if el kauka can surprise him with an unexpected entry

The Comments


el kauka:
Regardless what i'm sending - to face roy means you
are doomed. Victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none
The Results


Roy sent a modified Hullabaloo, while el kauka sent a p-warrior including a oneshot. That sounds like a close battle, but the p-warrior's oneshot wasn't able to dominate over the stone/paper. Overall, a clear victory for Roy van Rijn.

#%W%L%TName AuthorScore%
145.814.339.9 HoneyRoy van Rijn 458100.0
214.345.839.9 most stupid p switch everel kauka 143 31.2


Battle QF1Result
el kauka143
Roy van Rijn458


S.Fernandes vs. inversed


Fizmo's Comment


A very interesting match, because both surprises with very good entries so far.

The Comments


inverses:
This time I'm not well prepared, I just had no time. And the rules are
too typical (still can't understand why Fizmo alternated scoring formula, 
this doesn't affects 1-on-1 results).
So I took my best warrior PhatPaper, added a stone, trimmed qscan
and here it is; no time to optimize it. It only loses to some oneshots.
I've tried to make a P-switcher, but it exceeded maxsize by few instructions.
Probably I'll lose out but anyway participating in CSEC was a great fun.
The Results


inversed sent a qscan into stone/paper, while Fernandes paper/imps. The slight advantage of inversed's qscan seems lost by the slower booting of his stone/paper. The match was running nearly in a tie but S. Fernandes' entry finally achieved some few wins more.

#%W%L%TName AuthorScore%
1 2.6 1.296.2 SandpaperS.Fernandes 26100.0
2 1.2 2.696.2 Desperate Attemptinversed 12 46.2


Battle QF2Result
S. Fernandes26
inversed12


John Metcalf vs. Chip Wendell


Fizmo's Comment


Two corewar giants clashes in this match, but only one can survive. Who will it be?

The Comments


Chip Wendell:
1. First off: use p-space, or not? The short warrior length 
would make it difficult, plus I don't have much experience 
building p-warriors. So I won't use it, but I may brainwash 
if it doesn't hurt me too badly.

2. The "aggressive" scoring scheme would be a factor to 
consider if this was a round robin, but for a one-on-one 
battle, it's completely irrelevant. As with the usual scoring 
formula, the only important thing is to win more than I lose, 
regardless of ties.

3. So, what strategy should I pick? Stone/papers seem to be 
the most robust warriors, vulnerable mostly to scanners. John 
is a scanner guy, but he may avoid those for that reason. 
Besides, there's a chance (however slim) that John will be 
fooled by the scoring scheme into thinking that I won't enter 
a paper.

4. Hullabaloo seems to be about the best recent S/P, so I'll 
start with that. The qscan section is too long, but I don't 
want to enter without one, since that would make me even 
more vulnerable to scanners (no decoy). Reepicheep has a 
nice short one, so I'll borrow that. It fits very nicely.

5. I want to add brainwashing, to foil any of John's attempts 
at p-brains. After wasting time determining that adding an 
STP line to the paper wrecks the paper, I added a line to 
the stone. It drops from .5c to .4c, but it doesn't seem to 
hurt its score much, so it's probably worth it.

6. Send it in, and cross fingers...
The Results


John sent a anti-imp stone hoping for a scanner or stone/imps, while Chip expected a scanner or a p-spacer choosing a stone/paper with brainwash. Finally it was a clear victory for Chip Wendell.

#%W%L%TName AuthorScore%
162.812.025.2 Windshield WiperChip Wendell628100.0
212.062.825.2 LodestoneJohn Metcalf120 19.1


Battle QF3Result
John Metcalf120
Chip Wendell628


German Labarga vs. Zul Nadzri


Fizmo's Comment


Zul Nadzri sent the last rounds always papers, will he continue? Will German Labarga surpises Zul with something unexpected?

The Comments


German Labarga:
  Zul will surely submit a p-spacer with some kind of brainwashig.
If i submit a single warrior it will be probably beaten by
any of his components, so i have to submit a p^3 with some
brainwash detection cappability.

I first wanted to use a scanner+stone/paper or similar using a version
of Gihegruoerg, ;but can't fit something like that in 50 instructions.

So finally try a p-spaced paper/imp, with and without stone.
I know that there will be many ties and the scores will be low,
but taking a few poitns from my opponent would be enough to win.
The p/i is very strong and i think it can only be beaten by a
fast anti-imp scanner, so then, the stone pops up.
Zul Nadzri:
Again (and again) victory mostly depends on good anticipation 
of opponent's strategy. Usually, it is better not to anticipate 
anything and put the passion into a warrior. This time, I am going to 
resurrect another off-hill warrior. May be can submit to the hill after 
this, after all the effort spent for this round.
I picked Dawn 2, Roy's warrior because the core is definitely less than 
50 lines.
Why Dawn? I admit it has disadvantages. So do other warriors. Remember 
the stone/scissor/paper analogy?
Why paper? I am sure G.Labarga loves to destroy papers with his scanner...
...and I am going to give him a challenge that he is looking for! You 
better win dude!!
More tips: this warrior can't beat Recon2
First, I removed Dawn's Qscan to meet the 50 lines standard.
Second, I removed all empty codes, making the warrior compact to attract 
scanners to the 'decoy'.
Third, I filled gaps with stp.ab >0, #0 just in case it can be executed. 
Put PIN 13 on top.
Fourth, Gave a good name "Peaceful Jawn". Ain't is beautiful?
Fifth, Jawn = John + Dawn. Acousticly, 'Jawn' is 'John'...almost the same 
sound and frequency.
Sixth, send early to Fizmo and enjoy my holiday.
Seventh, if your name is John, this is not related to you ;)
The Results


Zul didn't sent a p-warrior as German expected but paper/imps. There was no scanner who could be defeated by Labarga's p-warrior to get some wins. Zul get a close victory with only a few (early round) wins because he hadn't spent cycles for a p-switcher before launching his code.

#%W%L%TName AuthorScore%
1 6.0 0.094.0 Peaceful JawnZul Nadzri 60100.0
2 0.0 6.094.0 The stifling lockG.Labarga 0 0.0


Battle QF4Result
German Labarga0
Zul Nadzri60



The Second Chance Tournament Tree Fixtures

There is a second chance for all players who wants to continue the CSEC2005:

Here are the fixtures for the second round:

datagram vs. LAchi


The Comments


datagram:
I don't know who my opponent is, but assuming they don't make 
a scanner that is better than my scanner, I should have pretty good 
chances to win. The warrior is a p-switcher that is 2 parts zooom 
scanner and 1 part kline paper. The scanner uses a SJD clear,
SPL-JMP-DAT; works better against imps than SSD.  Kline paper does 
well against most Stone/Imp. Should be immune to brainwashing. Not 
optimized, but scores decently against most mid-level warriors.
The Results


#%W%L%TName AuthorScore%
112.210.777.1 Planterdatagram 122100.0
210.712.277.1 MowgliLAchi 107 87.7


BattleResult
datagram122
LAchi107


Nenad Tomasev vs. Mizcu


The Comments


Mizcu:
Why should i spend time trying to make
something myself? Fooling around with
pspace would drive me crazy, and
i doubt that Nenad will use it
The Results


#%W%L%TName AuthorScore%
1 7.3 4.788.0 QHack1Nenad Tomasev 73100.0
2 4.7 7.388.0 CSECMiz 47 64.4


BattleResult
Nenad Tomasev73
Mizcu47


Jens Gutzeit vs. Janeczek


The Comments


Michal Janeczek:
The new scoring scheme doesn't change anything in 'one must 
fall' tournament.. So given my lack of time and decent performance 
of Microvenator in RF4, I'll submit just this. Hopefully the 
new name will be enough to stop Jens :)
#%W%L%TName AuthorScore%
140.338.421.3 Fluff is not enoughMichal Janeczek403100.0
238.440.321.3 A Fool's CrusadeJens Gutzeit384 95.3


BattleResult
Jens Gutzeit384
Michal Janeczek403



The Off-Topic Round-Robin Results

Just keep in mind that only here the scoring scheme will affect the results.

#%W%L%TName AuthorScore%
126.8 9.663.5 Windshield WiperChip Wendell 26.85100.0
226.843.130.1 Fluff is not enoughMichal Janeczek 26.82 99.9
325.2 9.465.3 HoneyRoy van Rijn 25.25 94.0
424.0 8.467.6 MowgliLAchi 23.97 89.3
523.2 8.668.2 CSECMiz 23.19 86.4
619.518.562.0 Planterdatagram 19.50 72.6
719.439.341.3 A Fool's CrusadeJens Gutzeit 19.39 72.2
819.313.667.1 Desperate Attemptinversed 19.34 72.0
917.438.943.7 most stupid p switch everel kauka 17.39 64.8
1016.9 1.681.5 Peaceful JawnZul Nadzri 16.90 63.0
1114.4 5.280.4 The stifling lockG.Labarga 14.37 53.5
1214.3 9.875.9 QHack1Nenad Tomasev 14.32 53.3
1312.359.128.5 LodestoneJohn Metcalf 12.32 45.9
14 8.9 3.487.8 SandpaperS.Fernandes 8.89 33.1


2002-2005 corewar.info. All Rights Reserved. Logo C. Schmidt
CSEC 2005
Home
Schedule
Qualification
Round 2
Quarterfinal
Semi Final
Final
CSEC 2005
 
Player Profiles
Jens Gutzeit
X-man
el kauka
fiveop
Nenad Tomašev
John Metcalf
LAchi
Zul Nadzri
S. Fernandes
Roy van Rijn
German Labarga
Michal Janeczek
brx
Mizcu
Sascha Zapf
Will Varfar
Chip Wendell
inversed
datagram
John K. Lewis
Simon Wainwright
Player Profiles