RationalMadman

yes I was thinking this game will get interesting if there's rematches, revenge, habits etc. 

One way they claim that is the fact the misogyny has been an intricate pillar in the Abrahamic religions and is one of the primary differences between Pagan religions and them.

Idk about you but I can generally smell my own farts unfortunately, however it's true that for some reason it 'hits' less harsh.

Body odour is much more what you're describing. Unless someone sniffs their own armpits moving their head closer to it, they can't instinctively register the smell of their own BO.

Ironically, despite the same person finding their own BO bearable, family members (blood relatives) are programmed to find BO similar but not identical to their own as significantly disgusting, it is considered to be an evolutionary protection against incest and those that lacked it died out over several generations.

that is easily better than your round 1-4, in my personal opinion for pleasing an audience with a rap. You should have used it.

halloween is always a day where I feel energised, I never know why

Is it really gonna take 2 days per turn

What random thought that I have is neither too boring nor too inappropriate or cringey to post here?

Literally none, the ones that are neither are my longer thoughts that aren't random but carried on over a while.

the one pooping his pants is deep brown in the pants department and trying to recode it 

Nobody thought he said n-word there, there would be severe outrage if he had.

I'll vs anyone but that map is understood inside-out by most here now. You just aim to be +2 or +1 and maybe +3 in one area only, beyond that, the battle comes down to whether the one ahead maintains their +1 or gets tied, this comes down to reads and knowing whether to perhaps weaken something or over-invest in securing something.

All great stuff but please do me a favour, I'm asking publicly because I got nothing to be ashamed of, ignore the MEEP on the moderation log, let it just sit there. You will gain absolutely nothing for the website nor will any previously punished user that's reformed enjoy, behave better or feel good if you air our their dirty laundry (which includes false accusations completely warped out of context).

Just leave it permanently under construction, it's win-win. Anybody who chases you up on it is an idiot.

If he is allowed to rewrite his bot, I want a rematch from scratch. I intentionally overbet 2 spots to have 3 instead of +2 because I was ready to allow the bot to steal at least one spot from me at the start creating inequality where it couldn't perfectly allocate points based on its algorithm as it needed 1 more the next turn to sufficiently stick to its ethos. Then, I put 1 in his spot with 2 purely so that it guaranteed if his bot valued offense over defense I could lead both him and the bot into a false sense of security so that I could grab both +1s (whichever one it didn't cover).

If it alternatively had proven to value defense over offense, I'd have approached the next 2 rounds differently (the key to realising it valued offense was in the zone 6 that it left +1 in order to put into attack on the second round).

I used the Round 2-3 transition and to set myself up so that round 3-4 would reveal what the bot does when it actually has 1 too many, not too few, points to stick to its algorithm. It made my +2 shallow rather than tried to make any of its +2s extra reinforced, this gave another clue that I was going to exploit as things proceeded.

All of my 'mistakes' (trading short-term gain for long-term dominance over the bot) will amount to absolutely nothing if he rewrites the bot to adapt now. I wouldn't have played this the same if I was against a human being who perhaps will take a gamble at some point, I am against a bot who works on rigid efficiency and the rigidity has a flaw or 2 if one correctly approaches it.

I succeeded in shocking him and turning the tables, that's all my win condition was, personally. I knew I was against a bot, so I played it different. I would have 100% done what the bot did in turn 1 had I predicted that I'd be against a human who'd take a risk at some point and also who wouldn't have rigid patterns even if they played smart.

It was the same observational skills that allowed me to defeat Ilikepie5 after refusing to force a win in an earlier Round. He had a habit of protecting Zone 4 when under pressure that remained consistent to the end. I had safely tested if he did or didn't have this instinct, in previous rounds and that's why I put my final one into Zone 2.

I agreed to challenge his bot as was described on the map we played before.

Not only did I concede to this new map, I even had a disadvantage at the start that made him and/or his bot calculate 95% assurance I lose.

He is now salty because I read his bot well based on what it did in the first three moves and now knows if he sticks to the bot's method I will probably tie, depending on the next move or even potentially win.

there should be a time limit on moves

I thought his bot takes only 20 seconds maximum

cute

why does one player have 1 more than the other player?

I can't host the game of ramshutu vs you because ramshutu has me blocked and vice versa.

If you will host the game of me vs him, I would just like to prove that the algorithm I posted works.

He grabbed the US white house by the pussy that's for sure.

I agree 100% to what you just said to Supadudz.

Yeah you can't beat pure optimisation in this game because pure optimisation aims for a draw, not a win, due to the game being so defense-oriented.

If they go crazy with their first moves and have challenged you very hard so that you can't follow the +1, tie, +2 algorithm, change the maximum to aim for (+3) to +4 instead for your earlier moves and when you'd transition to +2 max, instead have it at +3 max.

If even this leaves you with points free/spare, then challenge the zone 7 or zone 3 where they have 3 points. don't worry about winning that zone, it's about lessening their default +3 lead if they are to defend elsewhere to your +4s

okay I will

Agree to disagree I guess. The glass game is where I really lost any sense of approval of the game's concept. Until the glass game, some degree of 'fairness' could be feigned, after that it was 100% out the window (pun intended).

disproving his number 2 requires the very opposite to what you did. You mean something like 'cheating on a spouse isn't that rare and yet it is immoral'.

You called me a 'fucking retard' in PMs and expect me to unblock you.

It's actually +3 or more, if you only focus on things below +2 or more you aren't truly playing optimally in that format. If someone has +2 on you, put 1 into it, lessen the lead for 2 turns ahead.

I didn't do this in the games I played and I think it's my biggest hole in the playstyle. Don't contest things equally, put over-pressure to +1 and ties while putting under-pressure to +2.

This will be a tie too.

|X|_|O|

All anyone can do is tie, tic tac toe is easy.

Sniffing... The greatest sin of all.

okay but really I can't be online constantly, I have stuff to do, this was just a break

If you are zones 6-10 start like this:

0,0,0,4,3,2,1,0,0,0

If you are the inverse, 1-5, just flip it:

0,0,0,1,2,3,4,0,0,0

If the opponent attacked your zone 7 or alternatively your zone 3 (the one you had a default of 3 in) or upward in points (zones with 4 or 5) at any point in the game, you are already 100% safe. If not, you are still at risk. Note that them attacking your zone with 3 doesn't lose them the game if you don't play correctly, it does however increase the odds you and them tie at worst (for you) significantly due to how the leads and incomplete information of where to allocate per Round works (you have more chaos on your side, they are more predictable as 3 of theirs have been spent in a way you already cancelled out which you didn't do in reverse to them).

It is important to know which of the two has occured because you are always fundamentally thinking like an attacker or defender, never neither.

If you are in defense-mode still, pay attention to any spot where the opponent has +1 or +2 on you but not +3, add 1 to these spots in the next round, not more and not less. Even if it's +2, add only 1. Any spot where you've gained +2, add 1.

Any spot that's tied, add 2, any spot that's +2, add 1.

The things I just said apply to all zones, even ones where you have 4 or 5 if they attacked there.

If they have +3 on you anywhere, surrender the zone. You will be able to tie it later if need be. 

If they have +4 or more on you 100% surrender it, they've lost the game already.

In Round 3, pay attention to how they went about approaching your Round 1 moves. Did they react strongly to something? If they did, add 3 to it the next Round. If they didn't, add four 2s as you see fit.

Never ever, at any stage here allow yourself to potentially be +4 or more in any zone that you weren't already by default.

Aim to be +2 everywhere in conflict but don't worry about risking being +3.

From this point on, Round 4 and onwards, change the algorithm to aim to add nothing to zones where the enemy is +2 and instead keep adding +3 to zones where they are +1 and adding +2 to zones where you're tied. If somehow this isn't possible to be considered optimal due to a rare approach by the opponent, add 2 to all zones under conflict on your Round 4 AND Round 5 turn, ignore anything happening that suggests otherwise. 7 doesn't divide by 2 so add 3 to one of them, don't add 1 anywhere in a scenario where the prior split doesn't leave you with 0.

By Round 6 you've either already won the game or are going to be playing for a tie.

At this point, assess if overall you're ahead or not. If you're ahead, stick to where you have a lead and maintain a +2 lead there. Anywhere the enemy has a +1 lead, contest it for a tie. If the enemy has +2, potentially add 1 (never 2) to it if you have any spare because such a scenario means everything is deep and you want to make their lead more shallow.

In the final 3 Rounds, if you have played as recommended here, you actually never need to split. Do all-in moves, if the enemy guesses wrong you win if they guess right you tie. You have no capacity to lose if you did everything correctly.

do you aim for +1 or +2 when it comes to axioms of spreading or attacking a close one

not really and I actually think it's the 1v1 dynamic that makes it so passively toxic. I'm interested in the 1v1v1 but never want to 1v1 on that again unless someone who promises not to mimic my system thinks they can beat it.

I did not stick to it rigidly this time because I wanted to bait and beat him but it failed

I surrender, he's won. My zone 8 move lost me the game because I anticipated an attack.

This game is just boring honestly for me. I know how to do it, you basically just secure everything to +3 initially, every time in a rigid manner. You  do this if in my zone position:

0,0,0,3,4,2,1,0,0,0

Then, any time the enemy pushed your +3 into a +1 or at any time they attack elsewhere that's below +3 on their side, you tie it, all game long, as much as you can. Then, by the time it's 5-4 left, if they played perfect, just split  in a way that forces a tie. 

I didn't say it was. I said you played optimally and optimal in this game is to play to tie, not to win which is a fundamentally boring style of game, there's other games rooted in that idea and I don't like them. I like games where you have some kind of initial 'flavour' advantage and disadvantage and by default the pressure to push your advantage comes throughout.

this game is stupid, the only way to maintain an advantage is to play to not have one and hope your enemy screws up, this is genuinely irritating.

zone 8 didn't get 2 more but yeah the end amounts are right I presume

It's a cultural thing. Americans want freedom over safety as an absolute in their culture. Except when it comes to online gambling or opportunities for the poor and other things, then they don't want freedom, lol.

if the 1 is on zone 4, he has to guess something in both rounds to avoid me being able to win.

it's a tie, there's no point playing it out anymore, I was meant to put the 1 on the tile next to it, I really hate the list method I'd rather say zones and where I want it

you didn't I definitely did

Are you arguing against the identity of the gender of all transgenders?

It's not clear if your argument is about rape, toilet gender split or the very freedom to be trans or alternatively if it's something about progressives and what you see as an issue with their overall outlook.