tegwick
b590e7fd59
Some checks failed
ci / check (push) Failing after 4s
Eight profiles on a common schema, each marking what was checked against a source this session and what is background recollection. Three are marked unverified in full — Machinations, the play substrates, most of RBG — and say so rather than reading as evaluations. Written straight after three review rounds whose entire yield was claims outrunning what had been checked, so the confidence rule is the first thing in the README. The survey changed the plan, which is what a survey is for. Track C was described in Positioning as open ground. It is not: Browne published 57 criteria for game quality, and Ai Ai already computes designer-facing measures — drama, lead changes, branching factor, completion, duration — from played games. The track becomes adopt, credit and find the gap. The gap looks real: those measures presume a leader, and SHARED GROUND has none — Modes.csv gives its tiebreak as "Not applicable". Track B probably adopts rather than builds. OpenSpiel implements CFR, best-response and exploitability over games that are simultaneous-move, imperfect-information and co-operative, which is all four of GROUND's awkward properties. "Does ATTACK ever pay" is a best-response question, and we spent three review rounds refining a two-policy sweep for it. The first Track B task is now one question — is exploitability meaningful for a co-operative game with a shared threshold — not a build. The cost of not surveying earlier is therefore measurable, and is recorded rather than glossed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
1.2 KiB
1.2 KiB
RBG — Regular Boardgames
checked that it exists and is benchmarked against Ludii; everything else
unverified
What it optimises for
A game description language with efficient reasoning as the explicit goal — the speed axis of the GDL/Ludii tradeoff.
How a game is defined
A regular-language-based description. unverified in detail.
What it can analyse
open. Its published framing is reasoning efficiency, not design support.
Relevance to clay-borg
Track A, as the third point on the description-language axis — GDL (expressive, slow), Ludii (concise, fast, ludeme-structured), RBG (speed-first).
Ludii is reported to describe hidden information and non-deterministic
games with less restriction on the board than RBG. checked — which
matters directly, because GROUND is both hidden-information and
non-deterministic.
What to steal / avoid
open — not enough read to say.
Open questions
- Everything past the comparison paper. This profile exists so the option is not forgotten, not because we have evaluated it.
Sources
- Efficient Reasoning in Regular Boardgames (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.08295)
- A note on the empirical comparison of RBG and Ludii (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.00309)