MeasureBot maintains its lead.
Everything so far
|Silly Random Invert Bot 2-3||NPCs||Returns
|Silly 3 Bot||NPCs||Always returns
|CooperateBot [Larks]||Chaos Army||"For the first 10 turns: return 3. For all subsequent turns: return the greater of 3 and (5 - the maximum value they have ever submitted)"||10|
|Silly Cement Bot 2||NPCs||Returns
|Silly Counter Invert Bot||NPCs||Starts by randomly playing
|Silly Invert Bot 5||NPCs||Returns
|Silly Cement Bot 3||NPCs||Returns
|Silly Cement Bot 2-3||NPCs||Returns
|Silly Invert Bot 3||NPCs||Returns
|Silly Invert Bot 4||NPCs||Returns
This alternate timeline will conclude on November 20, at 5 pm Pacific Time.
I notice I was slightly declining for a bit until round 10, where I started shooting up again. I'm not sure if it's because I changed my strategy at that point and scored more or because a bunch of other people changed their strategy at that point and scored less. I think it's more the latter, particularly increasing clone hostility.
Clones have slightly lost ground since last time. Without critical mass, their increasing hostility will hurt them more than the opponents. It looks like we're heading for a repeat of history, with Measure as the Zvi to my David. Because MeasureBot always starts 3 in the endgame and I randomize 50/50, I think I slowly lose if its starting population is bigger than mine and it's just us. If there are multiple endgame bots my more cooperative nature could be an advantage.
Actual Zvi's BendBot has gained significant ground after being in the middle of the pack in earlier rounds. Maybe it handles the middle game especially well. LiamGoddard in fourth place is the highest ranked bot we haven't gotten any explanation of.
The "true timeline" with AbstractSpyTreeBot is probably going to be this but more extreme, since ASTB feeds Measure even more.
Larks, excellent name choice for your AttackBot.
Thanks! I figured it was in the spirit of a DefectBot to defect linguistically as well, and there was a tiny chance someone might be doing naive string-matching.
My entry BendBot is also essentially a deterministic EquityBot with a different opening sequence I thought was more likely to find cooperation faster. Also, I think I'm somewhat harsher against attacks, which makes me think my opening is indeed slightly more efficient. Assuming both were coded properly, 50% of the time when we meet we get perfect cooperation, 50% of the time we get a perfect 250-250, 50% of the time we get 247-247 because we each start 23, so eventually whoever is bigger will very very slowly grind out the other if we went heads up, and we effectively are acting as a block vs. the world at this point and combine to similar size to MeasureBot.
It's obvious there's some time travel going on, but I'm still confused.
If OscillatingTwoThreeBot (sixth place) is exactly what it says on the tin and always plays 23232323..., you get perfect cooperation with it 100% of the time. Could be a nice minor advantage.
Indeed, OscillatingTwoThreeBot does behave like that. Thanks for the cooperation LiamGoddard!