The Tix family of games have common rules, but different piece mixes. The objective is to deprive your opponent of moves by deactivating their active pieces.
Generated at 30/10/2020, 01:00 from 103852 logged games.
Representative game (in the sense of being of mean length). Wherever you see the 'representative game' referred to in later sections, this is it!
The full rules are long and complex. I suggest reading the rules at the Nestorgames web site if you are not fully familiar with them.
The following actions are available at the start of a turn:
Played only with Tix pieces (simple squares).
Played only with Tixel pieces (one hollow edge).
Played only with Regatta pieces (one hollow edge, one rounded corner). The board edge is bounded.
Played only with Tixel pieces (one hollow edge). Promotions are allowed.
If you cannot move on your turn, you lose.
Family: Combinatorial 2014,Tix
|mrraow||6||For some reason, I find the strategy of this game; and forerunner Tix; eludes me. I probably need to be beaten by an expert a few times before I get it!|
|Martinus||N/A||Six 2x3 modular board tiles|
|HilkMAN||8||Very tentative rating - after one play, against the designer who wiped me out, I would say that I am very fascinated, though it lacks the great balance between simple play and deep thinking of Tix, being much more complicated. But that might be because I played Tix more than 100 times and Tixel only once so far. It will be hard to find more opponents for this, but I will keep my eyes open for an online version. .|
|fogus||5.5||The game is stunningly simplistic and for that I give it a point outright. That said, I found the play repetitive though some nice patterns emerged naturally during play. I'd play again.|
|glanfam||N/A||Plus Extra Tix pieces. Having trouble with the rules.|
|mroy||9||This game is really awesome. It has just a small set of rules, but endless possible strategies. What I especially like about this game is the extremely delicate balance between being in the lead of the game and having to react to your opponent's actions. A balance between being the hunter at one moment and becoming the prey just one or a few turns later. Or the other way around. YOU HAVE TO STAY FOCUSED!!! From start to finish. Because right at the moment when you think you can't lose a particular game, you'll make a very tiny little (and probably at a first glance insignificant) mistake and it's "bye bye victory" or you have to come up with some ingenious mastermind solution to fix it. And trust me, you will definitely make such a crucial mistake when you start getting overconfident. It's even very likely that you won't notice it immediately that you have made a wrong move. I've said multiple times to myself:"WTH!??? I've made a mistake somewhere in the game, but where and when??? I should have won this game, not him!!!" In short: an obviously trivial move, will turn out to be not that trivial at all. Another very interesting aspect of the game is this: The dilemma of reducing the space on the board to limit your opponents options, or make more space on the board to ensure you have enough room for yourself. Every single one of your decisions can work in favor or terribly against you. Tip: make smart use of the chaining rule as it might help you in turning a game in your favor. However the rules are fairly simple, it's a very deep game and I'm sure this game has a lot of undiscovered secrets in it. This game is a very nice example of how an already good game (Tix) can evolve, by just some minor changes, to a perfect game. I own the Nestorgames version of this game, which looks very nice. Thanks to the cotton carrying case, you can easily take it with you on a travel. Martijn, you hit it again. Thanks, man!!!|
|zefquaavius||9||Another marvel from Martijn! It's [thing=63339][/thing], but with the square shapes taking a perfect arc of concavity on one side, with the rules tweaked just enough to accommodate that. This adds just enough extra mind-warping to enhance the experience that bit more.|
Ai Ai calculates the size of the implementation, and compares it to the Ai Ai implementation of the simplest possible game (which just fills the board). Note that this estimate may include some graphics and heuristics code as well as the game logic. See the wikipedia entry for more details.
|Playouts per second||8027.46 (124.57µs/playout)|
|Reference Size||1991635.13 (0.50µs/playout)|
|Ratio (low is good)||248.10|
Tavener complexity: the heat generated by playing every possible instance of a game with a perfectly efficient programme. Since this is not possible to calculate, Ai Ai calculates the number of random playouts per second and compares it to the fastest non-trivial Ai Ai game (Connect 4). This ratio gives a practical indication of how complex the game is. Combine this with the computational state space, and you can get an idea of how strong the default (MCTS-based) AI will be.
Random: 10 second warmup for the hotspot compiler. 100 trials of 1000ms each.
Other: 100 playouts, means calculated over the first 5 moves only to avoid distortion due to speedup at end of game.
Rotation (Half turn) lost each game as expected.
Reflection (X axis) lost each game as expected.
Reflection (Y axis) lost each game as expected.
Copy last move lost each game as expected.
Mirroring strategies attempt to copy the previous move. On first move, they will attempt to play in the centre. If neither of these are possible, they will pick a random move. Each entry represents a different form of copying; direct copy, reflection in either the X or Y axis, half-turn rotation.
This chart shows the heuristic values thoughout a single representative* game. The orange line shows the difference between player scores. (* Representative, in the sense that it is close to the mean game length.)
|1: White win %||53.06±0.30||Includes draws = 50%|
|2: Black win %||46.94±0.30||Includes draws = 50%|
|Draw %||4.88||Percentage of games where all players draw.|
|Decisive %||95.12||Percentage of games with a single winner.|
|Samples||103852||Quantity of logged games played|
Note: that win/loss statistics may vary depending on thinking time (horizon effect, etc.), bad heuristics, bugs, and other factors, so should be taken with a pinch of salt. (Given perfect play, any game of pure skill will always end in the same result.)
Note: Ai Ai differentiates between states where all players draw or win or lose; this is mostly to support cooperative games.
|Match||AI||Strong Wins||Draws||Strong Losses||#Games||Strong Score||p1 Win%||Draw%||p2 Win%||Game Length|
|2||UCT (its=3)||631||0||253||884||0.6831 <= 0.7138 <= 0.7426||52.83||0.00||47.17||29.62|
|7||UCT (its=8)||631||0||360||991||0.6063 <= 0.6367 <= 0.6661||51.36||0.00||48.64||33.05|
|22||UCT (its=23)||629||4||344||977||0.6153 <= 0.6459 <= 0.6752||50.87||0.41||48.72||42.67|
0.5789 <= 0.6095 <= 0.6393
0.4671 <= 0.4980 <= 0.5289
Search for levels ended: time limit reached.
Level of Play: Strong beats Weak 60% of the time (lower bound with 95% confidence).
Draw%, p1 win% and game length may give some indication of trends as AI strength increases.
This chart shows the win(green)/draw(black)/loss(red) percentages, as UCT play strength increases. Note that for most games, the top playing strength show here will be distinctly below human standard.
|Branching factor||98.41|| |
|Complexity||10^104.26||Based on game length and branching factor|
|Computational Complexity||10^9.19||Sample quality (100 best): 16.96|
|Samples||103852||Quantity of logged games played|
Computational complexity (where present) is an estimate of the game tree reachable through actual play. For each game in turn, Ai Ai marks the positions reached in a hashtable, then counts the number of new moves added to the table. Once all moves are applied, it treats this sequence as a geometric progression and calculates the sum as n-> infinity.
|Distinct actions||930588||Number of distinct moves (e.g. "e4") regardless of position in game tree|
|Killer moves||3294||A 'killer' move is selected by the AI more than 50% of the time|
Too many killers to list.
|Good moves||71800||A good move is selected by the AI more than the average|
|Bad moves||858788||A bad move is selected by the AI less than the average|
|Terrible moves||827660||A terrible move is never selected by the AI|
Too many terrible moves to list.
|Response distance||4.30||Mean distance between move and response; a low value relative to the board size may mean a game is tactical rather than strategic.|
|Samples||103852||Quantity of logged games played|
A mean of 68.52% of board locations were used per game.
Colour and size show the frequency of visits.
Game length frequencies.
This chart is based on a single representative* playout, and gives a feel for the change in material over the course of a game. (* Representative in the sense that it is close to the mean length.)
Table: branching factor per turn, based on a single representative* game. (* Representative in the sense that it is close to the mean game length.)
This chart is based on a single representative* game, and gives a feel for the types of moves available throughout that game. (* Representative in the sense that it is close to the mean game length.)
Red: removal, Black: move, Blue: Add, Grey: pass, Purple: swap sides, Brown: other.
This chart shows the best move value with respect to the active player; the orange line represents the value of doing nothing (null move).
The lead changed on 5% of the game turns. Ai Ai found 1 critical turn (turns with only one good option).
This chart shows the relative temperature of all moves each turn. Colour range: black (worst), red, orange(even), yellow, white(best).
|Measure||All players||Player 1||Player 2|
|Mean % of effective moves||78.82||72.65||85.35|
|Mean no. of effective moves||63.93||65.61||62.15|
|Effective game space||10^107.62||10^55.57||10^52.05|
|Mean % of good moves||39.87||59.66||18.93|
|Mean no. of good moves||26.81||39.89||12.97|
|Good move game space||10^73.37||10^52.34||10^21.03|
These figures were calculated over a single game.
An effective move is one with score 0.1 of the best move (including the best move). -1 (loss) <= score <= 1 (win)
A good move has a score > 0. Note that when there are no good moves, an multiplier of 1 is used for the game space calculation.
|Hot turns||38.57%||A hot turn is one where making a move is better than doing nothing.|
|Momentum||7.14%||% of turns where a player improved their score.|
|Correction||28.57%||% of turns where the score headed back towards equality.|
|Depth||8.31%||Difference in evaluation between a short and long search.|
|Drama||11.57%||How much the winner was behind before their final victory.|
|Foulup Factor||65.71%||Moves that looked better than the best move after a short search.|
|Surprising turns||0.00%||Turns that looked bad after a short search, but good after a long one.|
|Last lead change||97.14%||Distance through game when the lead changed for the last time.|
|Decisiveness||40.00%||Distance from the result being known to the end of the game.|
These figures were calculated over a single representative* game, and based on the measures of quality described in "Automatic Generation and Evaluation of Recombination Games" (Cameron Browne, 2007). (* Representative, in the sense that it is close to the mean game length.)
Colour shows the success ratio of this play over the first 10moves; black < red < yellow < white.
Size shows the frequency this move is played.
Note: most games do not take board rotation and reflection into consideration.
Multi-part turns could be treated as the same or different depth depending on the implementation.
Counts to depth N include all moves reachable at lower depths.
Inaccuracies may also exist due to hash collisions, but Ai Ai uses 64-bit hashes so these will be a very small fraction of a percentage point.
69216 solutions found at depth 3.
Black to win in 8 moves
White to win in 5 moves
Weak puzzle selection criteria are in place; the first move may not be unique.