[HN Gopher] Can you be sure to clear a line at Tetris? ___________________________________________________________________ Can you be sure to clear a line at Tetris? Author : a3_nm Score : 81 points Date : 2022-04-19 19:38 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (a3nm.net) (TXT) w3m dump (a3nm.net) | Hogarth01 wrote: | There was a kid I knew in school who I would consider a very good | tetris player. One time someone else was lamenting that they | always get bad pieces and he said, "The Tetris gods will never | give you a piece you can't play, you just don't know how to play | it." Which has resonated with me for an oddly long time in my | life. | __s wrote: | This sort of thing comes up a lot in card games like mtg. Some | players are convinced they're naturally unlucky. I like to | phrase it as "bad decks get bad draws". To improve one has to | be luck oblivious: improve what you can, accept what you can't. | Bit of a serenity prayer approach | bombcar wrote: | This is one of those questions that _seems_ to be wide open for | elaborate proofs - but it turns out the total number of | possibilities isn 't that large, and you can simply enumerate | each one. | andsens wrote: | Heh, yup. I remember an article on here about some low-level | calculation optimization for 32-bit ints that bugged out even | with extensive edge-case testing. The conclusion being "just | test all the numbers", 2^32 isn't that much! | pfedak wrote: | maybe https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/theres- | only-fou... | tosh wrote: | Related: in the official specification of the game the pieces | ("tetrominoes") are drawn from a bag to prevent the possibility | of an unfavorable sequence of pieces that force you to lose the | game. | | IIRC early implementations of the game did not always behave like | that. | | https://tetris.fandom.com/wiki/Tetris_Guideline | | > You might have heard of the result that you can play forever | with bag randomizer, Hold and 3 previews (a similar setup even | works with 0 previews). However, the opposite is true, if you | play with a randomizer that can generate all piece sequences | (e.g. memoryless randomizer). In this article we will present a | piece sequence that will top you out - no matter what you do. | | https://harddrop.com/wiki/A_deadly_piece_sequence | | https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.55... | balfirevic wrote: | > IIRC early implementations of the game did not always behave | like that. | | And they were also much better for it, in my opinion (and that | of many classic NES Tetris fans). | omoikane wrote: | See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20872110 | | "A history of Tetris randomizers (2018)" | tedunangst wrote: | https://simon.lc/the-history-of-tetris-randomizers | m4lvin wrote: | Is there a good way to reduce SAT or other decision problems to | Tetris? Do we need to enlarge the grid to reduce larger problem | instances, or can the duration of the play / length of the | sequence be used for that? | | I would hope for something like "This list of clauses is | satisfiable iff there is a winning strategy to clear at least N | lines when given the following sequence of tetrominoes". (Where | the article here says that there is no hope for anything like | this with N=1, but ) | | Or does knowing the whole sequence in advance make any sequence | easy to play / clear any number of lines? | dragontamer wrote: | In my experience, strong human players can consistently keep | track of random-bags and plan out holds, and do so at | surprisingly high speeds. | | I'm not sure if a computer SAT-solver is needed to accomplish | any of the tactics in Tetris-Guidelines. | | Maybe it'd be a fun exercise, like using SAT-solvers on human- | level Sudoku puzzles. Or for maybe inventing "harder" versions | of Tetris, designed for computer players instead of human | players. | | ------- | | I've given some degree of idle thought in how a SAT-solver can | maybe discover patterns that would help an intermediate-player | develop the eyesight / instincts that strong players have. (Ex: | SAT-solver to see the patterns an intermediate player is using, | and then analyzing which patterns the player doesn't see yet). | | Its a vague / idle thought however, I never seriously attempted | to solve the problem. But "training exercises" exist in many | video games, and developing tools for human-training / self- | training are always useful. | | Ex: if a SAT solver could see that the human _COULD_ have | performed a King Crimson at some point | (https://harddrop.com/wiki/King_Crimson), but the human-player | made a mistake and only saw an easier TSpin-Triple setup | instead (https://harddrop.com/wiki/T-Spin_Triple). | | Such "computer automatic advice" into which elements of your | play was possible, and solving it automatically (and | determining if it was a good strategy or not) would be very | helpful in training. | foobarian wrote: | Most NP-complete problems have really good heuristics that | come to within a hair of optimal on most useful real-world | inputs, e.g. things like integer partitioning, bin packing, | traveling salesman, etc. You need really unusual inputs to | give an optimal solver a drastic advantage. Case in point, | with real-world TSP the fact that the cities are embedded on | a plane means their distances have constraints that don't | exist in the general problem. | lupire wrote: | I'm pretty sure 2-D Euclidean TSP is NP-Hard. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem | (Computational Complexity). | lupire wrote: | Yes. | | https://www.google.com/search?q=tetris%20n-p%20complete | georgecmu wrote: | If you want to test a strategy against an adversarial tetris | opponent: https://qntm.org/files/hatetris/hatetris.html | | The method by which the AI selects the worst possible piece is | extremely simple to describe (test all possible locations of all | possible pieces, see which of the pieces' best-case scenarios is | the worst, then spawn that worst piece), but quite time-consuming | to execute, so please forgive me if your browser chugs a little | after locking each piece. If you can figure out a way to | accelerate the algorithm without diminishing its hate-filled | efficiency, do let me know. The algorithm for "weighing" | possibilities is to simply maximise the highest point of the | "tower" after the piece is landed. | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | I remember seeing this at one point and clearing a grand total | of 5 lines in one game. Turns out it's hard if the game is | trying to make you lose. | lapetitejort wrote: | The resulting algorithm seems to be "spawn z and s pieces on | repeat". I only got one long piece and one L piece. | yodsanklai wrote: | The author may have written a brute force algorithm when a | greedy solution would have worked :) | dragontamer wrote: | Yes in "Tetris Guidelines". In fact, greater feats can be | accomplished in modern Tetris games, thanks to these strong | guidelines. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmG0NcbrLTE | | Strong players practice these loops all the time. Its possible | thanks to the "bag randomizer". | | -------- | | The BT Cannon is a TSpin double (4 damage + B2B bonus) + TSpin | Triple (6 damage + B2B bonus), for a total of 11 damage. | | The DT-cannon followup is a TSpin Triple followed by TSpin Double | for a total of 12 damage. | | Finally, the Perfect Clear is 10 damage, for a total of 33 damage | per loop. | | -------- | | Other players practice triple-perfect clear starts, for | 30-straight damage in some ~30 tetriminos dropped. But the BT- | cannon + DT Cannon -> Perfect clear setup is a beautiful | arrangement. | | The whole loop is carried out over 5 bags IIRC, or 35 pieces (5 | bags * 7 pieces per bag == 35 sets of each piece). That's enough | for the 4x T-pieces needed for the BT-cannon + DT Cannon (which | offer significant amounts of damage) | | 35 pieces * 4 pieces == 140 minos, or 14 lines (the Tetris board | is exactly 10 pieces wide). Which lines up with not only a | perfect bag loop (the 35th piece finishes the bag, meaning | piece#36 is a new bag, allowing you to loop), but also divides | perfectly with 140 minos aka 14 lines, meaning the perfect clear | is possible. | | ------ | | Thanks to Tetris Guidelines bag randomizer, bag#6 is effectively | the same situation as bag#1 (start of a new bag). So you loop the | sequence and can continuously apply the BT-cannon / DT-cannon / | perfect clear loop almost perpetually. In practice, its "only" a | 90%+ chance of continuing each loop, but that's a high enough | probability to effectively use the technique in competitive | games. | | EDIT: The existence of the "Hold Piece", in combination with the | "easy to count" 7-bag randomizer, allows for some incredible | feats in Tetris Guidelines that classic-Tetris players are | unfamiliar with. Its a different game, more about quick-reaction | speed and twitch reaction rather than the planning-centric | classic-Tetris. But its these attributes that make Tetris- | Guideline games better for player-vs-player setups. Practiced | strategies are more reliable and less contingent on luck. | httpsterio wrote: | I think we had this discussion a year or two ago, but | personally I find the guideline algorithm to be boring. It's | definitely more oriented to PVP Tetris. Something like TGM | would be boring if you can just execute builds instead of | preparing your stack and play for just about anything. | | It's true that there's a lot of different builds (I'm | personally more partial to the albatross special than DT | cannons) and builds are not only related to what you can build, | also how you should respond to your opponent. Like, is the game | even fun when you're just spamming t-spins with Tafokint's | T-spin factory? | | I'm a pretty highly ranked Tetris player, top ten in Finland in | T99, Tetr.io and Puyo Puyo Tetris and somewhere in the top 100 | as well, and in reality I think fancier builds like DT-cannons | are too fragile and reliant on a clean-ish stack that they're | not even viable in high level play. If you take ten seconds to | set up a tetris or 15 seconds for a triple T-spin then you're | gonna get spammed to death before you can reply with your fancy | build. | | In modern PVP Tetris I think there's only three tactics. If | you're not too technical, you need be fast at tetrises and hope | you can outpace your opponent. | | If you're slower, you have to deal more damage in the same time | or less = T-spins for double damage. It took me a year of | practicing to intuitively start leaving t-spin doubles in more | unconventional setups. There's the risk of being outpaced and | spammed but the double damage mitigates it a bit. | | Third option is comboing. I think it's the hardest to pull off | but it's also the most effective. With a three wide hole it's | fairly easy to get a combo going but there's always a huge risk | of topping out by a badly timed attack from the opponent. Four | wide is harder to keep going but it's safer. | | Depending on the game and network code, combo builds can be | game breaking and actually stagger the enemy so that they can't | even reply to your attacks. It is however the least effective | build in terms of how many pieces you need and the return | damage for each clear and there's the most unknowns in how | you're supposed to stack. | | But to sum up in short, I don't think "builds" per se are the | way to go in PVP. The "stack, attack and reply" formula simply | leaves too large holes for your opponent to attack and it's not | variable enough. Seeing parts of builds as patterns, like using | a roof on a T-shaped hole to build a triple T-spin is useful if | you can figure it out whilst clearing garbage and keeping a | constant battering on your enemy going. | | Personally, I think TTC forcing guidelines on single player | games is boring. TGM TAP+ was the pinnacle in terms of game | behavior and algorithms, IMO holds and the floor kicks in | Terror Instinct made everything a bit too easy and all the | difficulty comes from being ridiculously fast instead of being | super meticulous and eloquent in your stacking. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-19 23:00 UTC)