On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [257 RobotZ]
> <after a minute of puzzlement>
Sorry for not being clear, but you got it right in the end ;-)
> Anyway, I think that a competition of 256 or 257 robots will be very close
> to impossible to play. You'd have to have a *huge* playing field to make
> it a bit interesting, which has to be updated and kept consistent over all
> connected computers...
It sounds like you want every computer to calculate the position of every
robot. The way I see it, every computer keeps the program of 1 robot (or
more, if you're multitasking, which I am planning to include) and not that
of the others. Only the other's coordinates are sent through the net. As
someone stated before, you don't need to send any id, indeed.
> >> So what? Can't you write two robot-programs? :-)
> >Hehe... It will be boring after a while. If you make the possibility to play
> >against the computer (not using joynet), you could also spread robot-programs.
>
> When robot-programs are spread you can take the program of another and your
> own to play agains each other. No need to have a real 'computer' player.
> Or do we have a slight different opinion of 'computer player' and are actually
> saying the same?
No, we do not and we are not. I was just not thinking about it at that moment.
> >It might even be possible to encode it, so that you can't read the source to
> >see how to beat it, but that would be quite hard.
>
> That's why leaving the programming language open to the programmer is so
> good. Disassembling compiled TurboPascal or MSX-C code is quite hard...
That is true, but it is also very hard, to make a robot in a language like
that. My robot-language would only have the commands stated in the
original mail. Forward, Backward, If, etc. It's not a good programming
language. It's only there to make a robot move. But if you want your own
operating system (in oppose to just the robot-program), you can, of
course. But remember that it has to call the network and things like that.
It wouldn't be something just anyone who wants to play the game can do.
> On the other hand, if the source code of another program can help you to
> improve your own program, you can get a real evolution of programs...
Indeed, like with "real" code. But it's up to the programmer to make it
public or not. That's the idea of copyright ;-)
> > [idea!]
> >It is possible, of course, but how do you check if a language does not
> >cheat?
>
> A language can't cheat. Only the program (sorry for the lecture :-))
Sorry, we were misunderstanding each other. I was speaking of a language
for the robot, not for the operating system. What I meant by a cheating
language is a language that gives the player the possibility to break the
rules. If you write your own operating system, you will be using the most
cheating language there is, in this definition...
> To your Q: You can't if you don't use a special purpose robot programming
> language. But with a well defined set of playing rules you can limit the
> possibility of cheating.
If the rules are like:you cannot do more than 1 step each turn, it's easy.
You could just put a referee in the chain, which checks if you are making
any illegal moves. But in the original text, it is also stated that a
program is not allowed to use more than three of each of the move
commands. This can not only not be checked by a referee computer, it will
be a meaningless rule if you don't define the language.
> > Anyway, when I finish the game, I'll make the communication protocol
> >public,
>
> Let's first try to define the _exact_ playing rules. Then it's easier to
> define the communication protocol. I'll sleep on it this weekend :-)
I'll propose something soon, as well.
But let me start with the part that I have got already:
At the start of the game, in whatever way, 1 robot starts. The game
will be played in turns. Every turn a robot can do 1 action. The possible
actions is what we still have to agree on. The game is finished when there
is only 1 robot left.
I hope nobody has a problem with this. If you think it should be
different, write how you want it to be.
I'll think about the actions myself as well. I hope more people will, so
we will get a game that a lot of people will like.
> > so everybody is free to make his/her own language.
>
> I think you didn't quite understand what I meant: I was talking of _using_
> a programming language to program the robot , not specifically _making_ it.
> You only define the _playing rules_ and each and everyone can make a program
> in any language (C, TP, asm, BASIC, COBOL) that obeys the rules and tries to
> win...
Indeed I didn't understand you meant that. I explained my opinion about
this above.
> Eric
Bye,
shevek
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the
quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
****
