Hey everyone,
Just wanted to post a screenshot showing how I beat beginner in 0.00 seconds! I was bored and wanted to do some programming, so I googled & found a beginner board that could be won in two clicks. I then decided to make my program perform those two clicks, restart the level, perform those two clicks, restart the level, etc. I'm not sure how many tries it needed (I set it up to run 1,000,000 times overnight), but it was successful! I'll attach a screenshot of the error message that popped up. (Obviously this isn't a big deal since this scenario should never arise in normal play conditions)
Figured someone might be interested.
Dave
Breaking Arbiter for fun! :)
Breaking Arbiter for fun! :)
- Attachments
-
- beginner-0-seconds.PNG (30.18 KiB) Viewed 6587 times
-
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:50 pm
Re: Breaking Arbiter for fun! :)
yeah, "programming".
it's a neat idea you had there. you might want to read this:
http://www.minesweeper.info/articles/Lu ... dGames.pdf
seeing that the chances for a 2 3bv board are roughly 1 in 20 000, that the first click is always safe and that the second click has to done on one of the other 63 sqaures, your marco needs less than 130 000 attempts. when i tried this myself - before writing what is linked - it took me 5 minutes to find a nice prgram to record macros with and 10 minutes to edit said macro to suit my needs. since my macro was planned out to finish in around .015s and since my computer is far from new, i could only get it to around 200-250 iterations per minute. at this rate it should have taken me 9 to 11 hours to complete a game. needless to say that this is cheating. however, there is no need to worry, since the writing of the linked article led to a change in the rules for our rankings and such games would not be eligible to the rankings.
it's a neat idea you had there. you might want to read this:
http://www.minesweeper.info/articles/Lu ... dGames.pdf
seeing that the chances for a 2 3bv board are roughly 1 in 20 000, that the first click is always safe and that the second click has to done on one of the other 63 sqaures, your marco needs less than 130 000 attempts. when i tried this myself - before writing what is linked - it took me 5 minutes to find a nice prgram to record macros with and 10 minutes to edit said macro to suit my needs. since my macro was planned out to finish in around .015s and since my computer is far from new, i could only get it to around 200-250 iterations per minute. at this rate it should have taken me 9 to 11 hours to complete a game. needless to say that this is cheating. however, there is no need to worry, since the writing of the linked article led to a change in the rules for our rankings and such games would not be eligible to the rankings.
„Das perlt jetzt aber richtig über, ma sagn. Mach ma' noch'n Bier! Wie heißt das? Biddä! Bidddää! Biddddäää! Reiner Weltladen!“
Re: Breaking Arbiter for fun! :)
Yeah, it's a good thing we have the lucky rule now, because otherwise macro games like this would actually be legit for record entries It's interesting that Arbiter breaks if you get a 0.00 on a nontrivial board - but yeah, this would never happen in real play. I know that when I got a 0.00 on Minesweeper X (on a 3BV=1 board, which is illegally easy, so other clones won't generate it) there was no error.
NF player. Best scores 1-10-39.
Re: Breaking Arbiter for fun! :)
Wouldn't that require my program to actually analyze the board and pick the correct square, though? Mine is blindly clicking the same exact two squares. My next "programming" experiment was going to be trying to analyze the board and solve it automatically. After that I was going to try to make it move the mouse in a more realistic way. At that point, none of my low scores will ever matter again since it's obviously just me cheating.EWQMinesweeper wrote:seeing that the chances for a 2 3bv board are roughly 1 in 20 000, that the first click is always safe and that the second click has to done on one of the other 63 sqaures, your marco needs less than 130 000 attempts.
9 to 11 hours seems crazy, though! My program was running 2,960 runs per minute.
I suppose I should say it still works just fine - "Breaks" isn't quite true. It just gives me a nice error message when I open it.qqwref wrote:It's interesting that Arbiter breaks if you get a 0.00 on a nontrivial board - but yeah, this would never happen in real play
-
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 11:50 pm
Re: Breaking Arbiter for fun! :)
my estimation was for blindly guessing and the 9-11 hours for my slow macro. at close to 3000 iterations per minute your might have taken less than an hour.dvereb wrote:Wouldn't that require my program to actually analyze the board and pick the correct square, though? Mine is blindly clicking the same exact two squares.EWQMinesweeper wrote:seeing that the chances for a 2 3bv board are roughly 1 in 20 000, that the first click is always safe and that the second click has to done on one of the other 63 sqaures, your marco needs less than 130 000 attempts.
9 to 11 hours seems crazy, though! My program was running 2,960 runs per minute.
„Das perlt jetzt aber richtig über, ma sagn. Mach ma' noch'n Bier! Wie heißt das? Biddä! Bidddää! Biddddäää! Reiner Weltladen!“