All clones behave exactly the same until round 90. Even the seed for the random number generator is the same.
All I can imagine is that a tiny difference in score due to facing different bots snowballs into a significant different pie share due to the multiplicative effect that simon noted. There was a Silly 0 Bot. Any clone that was lucky enough to face it on round 1 gorged itself with score. Same thing with Silly 1 Bot and a few others. Since they disappeared fast, it’s a one-time bump in score that cannot be averaged over time.
Ah, I had misunderstood how the system works. I had not read carefully and assumed some kind of weighted round robin. Random pairings allow for a lot more random variation.
All clones should act equally against non-clones until the showdown round. I guess some outsider bots could be adjusting behavior depending on finding certain patterns in the code in order to respond to those patterns, and the relevant patterns occur in the payloads of some clones?
FWIW, doing better or worse in any given round has a multiplicative effect between rounds, not additive. So that might affect the level of randomness, though even with 100 it seems really big to be random.
Eyeballing the graphs it looks to me that CliqueZviBot is outperforming (multiplicatively) the average performance of the other cliquebots in every single round.
This is super odd if this Bot is indeed acting in exactly the same manner as the other clique bots.
ETA: Genuinely curious how this got downvoted even before it turned out to be correct.
No, 10 rounds of 100 turns is a decently large sample size—I think some are actually doing badly against outsiders.
All clones behave exactly the same until round 90. Even the seed for the random number generator is the same.
All I can imagine is that a tiny difference in score due to facing different bots snowballs into a significant different pie share due to the multiplicative effect that simon noted. There was a Silly 0 Bot. Any clone that was lucky enough to face it on round 1 gorged itself with score. Same thing with Silly 1 Bot and a few others. Since they disappeared fast, it’s a one-time bump in score that cannot be averaged over time.
Ah, I had misunderstood how the system works. I had not read carefully and assumed some kind of weighted round robin. Random pairings allow for a lot more random variation.
All clones should act equally against non-clones until the showdown round. I guess some outsider bots could be adjusting behavior depending on finding certain patterns in the code in order to respond to those patterns, and the relevant patterns occur in the payloads of some clones?
FWIW, doing better or worse in any given round has a multiplicative effect between rounds, not additive. So that might affect the level of randomness, though even with 100 it seems really big to be random.
Eyeballing the graphs it looks to me that CliqueZviBot is outperforming (multiplicatively) the average performance of the other cliquebots in every single round.
This is super odd if this Bot is indeed acting in exactly the same manner as the other clique bots.
ETA: Genuinely curious how this got downvoted even before it turned out to be correct.