<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_12_1729217</id>
	<title><em>StarCraft</em> AI Competition Announced</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258050660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bgweber writes <i>"The 2010 conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment (AIIDE 2010) will be <a href="http://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~bweber/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=starcraft\_aiide\_2010">hosting a <em>StarCraft</em> AI competition</a> as part of the conference program. This competition enables academic researchers to evaluate their AI systems in a robust, commercial RTS environment.  The competition will be held in the weeks leading up to the conference. The final matches will be held live at the conference with commentary. Exhibition matches will also be held between skilled human players and the top-performing bots."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bgweber writes " The 2010 conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment ( AIIDE 2010 ) will be hosting a StarCraft AI competition as part of the conference program .
This competition enables academic researchers to evaluate their AI systems in a robust , commercial RTS environment .
The competition will be held in the weeks leading up to the conference .
The final matches will be held live at the conference with commentary .
Exhibition matches will also be held between skilled human players and the top-performing bots .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bgweber writes "The 2010 conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment (AIIDE 2010) will be hosting a StarCraft AI competition as part of the conference program.
This competition enables academic researchers to evaluate their AI systems in a robust, commercial RTS environment.
The competition will be held in the weeks leading up to the conference.
The final matches will be held live at the conference with commentary.
Exhibition matches will also be held between skilled human players and the top-performing bots.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076948</id>
	<title>AIIDE web site</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1258056480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://www.aiide.org/" title="aiide.org">aiide conference web site</a> [aiide.org] has been Slashdotted... even though Slashdot didn't link to it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The aiide conference web site [ aiide.org ] has been Slashdotted... even though Slashdot did n't link to it .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The aiide conference web site [aiide.org] has been Slashdotted... even though Slashdot didn't link to it.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078258</id>
	<title>Re:Breakdown</title>
	<author>Frogbert</author>
	<datestamp>1258017900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worst. Poem. Ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worst .
Poem. Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worst.
Poem. Ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076882</id>
	<title>Re:Does AI have to be good?</title>
	<author>manyxcxi</author>
	<datestamp>1258056240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Question: Who is the Starcraft equivalent to Kasparov? (I actually really don't care)<br>

Step 1: Playoff/deathmatch style showdown to find the the best of the AIs<br>
Step 2:  The winning AI plays the 'best' human player<br>
Step 3: ???<br>
Step 4: Profit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : Who is the Starcraft equivalent to Kasparov ?
( I actually really do n't care ) Step 1 : Playoff/deathmatch style showdown to find the the best of the AIs Step 2 : The winning AI plays the 'best ' human player Step 3 : ? ? ?
Step 4 : Profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: Who is the Starcraft equivalent to Kasparov?
(I actually really don't care)

Step 1: Playoff/deathmatch style showdown to find the the best of the AIs
Step 2:  The winning AI plays the 'best' human player
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076736</id>
	<title>Ugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258055640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope by AI they mean "smart" not "fast".  Anyone who's played around with Warcraft, Starcraft, and the like knows you just can't out build the computer in the beginning.  Compy builds in terms of micro or nano seconds; humans, at best, click in terms of half-seconds.</p><p>I sometimes don't feel like playing other people, yet the computer is typically a sad joke for strategy beyond the rush.  To sum it up, if the new AI is the Zerg Rush master, but too stupid to fend me off should I survive, its fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope by AI they mean " smart " not " fast " .
Anyone who 's played around with Warcraft , Starcraft , and the like knows you just ca n't out build the computer in the beginning .
Compy builds in terms of micro or nano seconds ; humans , at best , click in terms of half-seconds.I sometimes do n't feel like playing other people , yet the computer is typically a sad joke for strategy beyond the rush .
To sum it up , if the new AI is the Zerg Rush master , but too stupid to fend me off should I survive , its fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope by AI they mean "smart" not "fast".
Anyone who's played around with Warcraft, Starcraft, and the like knows you just can't out build the computer in the beginning.
Compy builds in terms of micro or nano seconds; humans, at best, click in terms of half-seconds.I sometimes don't feel like playing other people, yet the computer is typically a sad joke for strategy beyond the rush.
To sum it up, if the new AI is the Zerg Rush master, but too stupid to fend me off should I survive, its fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076662</id>
	<title>Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258055400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know how you define rush.... I've had people complain that an attack after 10 minutes was a rush. Even the 6-pool was easily defeated by the proper build order and positioning. As a matter of fact, I liked SC more than others because every strategy had a proper counter. The only thing that was required was scouting - otherwise the other person could come in with the counter to your troops.</p><p>While I don't think it is a great medium for a test, it's a pretty good one. Especially if the AI has to deal with fog of war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how you define rush.... I 've had people complain that an attack after 10 minutes was a rush .
Even the 6-pool was easily defeated by the proper build order and positioning .
As a matter of fact , I liked SC more than others because every strategy had a proper counter .
The only thing that was required was scouting - otherwise the other person could come in with the counter to your troops.While I do n't think it is a great medium for a test , it 's a pretty good one .
Especially if the AI has to deal with fog of war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how you define rush.... I've had people complain that an attack after 10 minutes was a rush.
Even the 6-pool was easily defeated by the proper build order and positioning.
As a matter of fact, I liked SC more than others because every strategy had a proper counter.
The only thing that was required was scouting - otherwise the other person could come in with the counter to your troops.While I don't think it is a great medium for a test, it's a pretty good one.
Especially if the AI has to deal with fog of war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078388</id>
	<title>Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this?</title>
	<author>Daveznet</author>
	<datestamp>1258018380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The meta game for Starcraft has changed dramatically over the pass few years.  The game is more of a macro management game now.  Rush tactics are barely used in pro-matches and if they are and are properly defended with a proper scout the player rushing has a very little chance of coming back in the game because they are so economically behind.  Most games now are based on quick expansions

example

12nexus
14cc
12 hatch

Starcraft is probably the best game for this as IMO is the most balanced and RTS available on the market.  Hopefully the people programming the AI are seasoned players and know how the current meta-game for Starcraft Broodwar is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The meta game for Starcraft has changed dramatically over the pass few years .
The game is more of a macro management game now .
Rush tactics are barely used in pro-matches and if they are and are properly defended with a proper scout the player rushing has a very little chance of coming back in the game because they are so economically behind .
Most games now are based on quick expansions example 12nexus 14cc 12 hatch Starcraft is probably the best game for this as IMO is the most balanced and RTS available on the market .
Hopefully the people programming the AI are seasoned players and know how the current meta-game for Starcraft Broodwar is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The meta game for Starcraft has changed dramatically over the pass few years.
The game is more of a macro management game now.
Rush tactics are barely used in pro-matches and if they are and are properly defended with a proper scout the player rushing has a very little chance of coming back in the game because they are so economically behind.
Most games now are based on quick expansions

example

12nexus
14cc
12 hatch

Starcraft is probably the best game for this as IMO is the most balanced and RTS available on the market.
Hopefully the people programming the AI are seasoned players and know how the current meta-game for Starcraft Broodwar is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077462</id>
	<title>Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258058160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Starcraft isn't dominated by rushing tactics. You can win with a properly executed rush, just as you can win by using any other viable strategy, but a competent player is able to deal with rushes. Pro Starcraft players sometimes rush; sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. "ZERG RUSH LOL" is a fun meme but doesn't actually reflect reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Starcraft is n't dominated by rushing tactics .
You can win with a properly executed rush , just as you can win by using any other viable strategy , but a competent player is able to deal with rushes .
Pro Starcraft players sometimes rush ; sometimes it works and sometimes it does n't .
" ZERG RUSH LOL " is a fun meme but does n't actually reflect reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Starcraft isn't dominated by rushing tactics.
You can win with a properly executed rush, just as you can win by using any other viable strategy, but a competent player is able to deal with rushes.
Pro Starcraft players sometimes rush; sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
"ZERG RUSH LOL" is a fun meme but doesn't actually reflect reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30085386</id>
	<title>Re:Does AI have to be good?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258118220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interestingly, I think there's a deeper point here. What constitutes a good AI? From the summary it sounds like it's ability to win.</p><p>Creating an AI that can win I imagine wouldn't be too hard, because by focussing around just rushing the hell out the player or whatever as you can in most RTS games you can probably get a pretty high win rate for the AI.</p><p>Yet, that's not what I'd call a good AI, to me a good AI would be one that can build little squads, setup patrols and flank you and so forth, yet, it may not be harder to beat if the player uses the same rushing type tactic as above against such a more intelligent AI.</p><p>I don't think the former AI- one that just tries to win even if using dull tactics even adds anything to AI, we've been able to do this for ages, and it's not that fun to play against. The latter may be easier to beat, but is also much more fun to play against, it also opens the door for more advanced AI techniques so in general seems the better option to aim for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interestingly , I think there 's a deeper point here .
What constitutes a good AI ?
From the summary it sounds like it 's ability to win.Creating an AI that can win I imagine would n't be too hard , because by focussing around just rushing the hell out the player or whatever as you can in most RTS games you can probably get a pretty high win rate for the AI.Yet , that 's not what I 'd call a good AI , to me a good AI would be one that can build little squads , setup patrols and flank you and so forth , yet , it may not be harder to beat if the player uses the same rushing type tactic as above against such a more intelligent AI.I do n't think the former AI- one that just tries to win even if using dull tactics even adds anything to AI , we 've been able to do this for ages , and it 's not that fun to play against .
The latter may be easier to beat , but is also much more fun to play against , it also opens the door for more advanced AI techniques so in general seems the better option to aim for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interestingly, I think there's a deeper point here.
What constitutes a good AI?
From the summary it sounds like it's ability to win.Creating an AI that can win I imagine wouldn't be too hard, because by focussing around just rushing the hell out the player or whatever as you can in most RTS games you can probably get a pretty high win rate for the AI.Yet, that's not what I'd call a good AI, to me a good AI would be one that can build little squads, setup patrols and flank you and so forth, yet, it may not be harder to beat if the player uses the same rushing type tactic as above against such a more intelligent AI.I don't think the former AI- one that just tries to win even if using dull tactics even adds anything to AI, we've been able to do this for ages, and it's not that fun to play against.
The latter may be easier to beat, but is also much more fun to play against, it also opens the door for more advanced AI techniques so in general seems the better option to aim for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077996</id>
	<title>Re:Does AI have to be good?</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1258016880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Step 1: Playoff/deathmatch style showdown to find the the best of the AIs</p></div><p>Fallacious</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 : Playoff/deathmatch style showdown to find the the best of the AIsFallacious</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 1: Playoff/deathmatch style showdown to find the the best of the AIsFallacious
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077826</id>
	<title>Re:What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258059480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm hoping this is a joke. I couldn't bring myself to laugh at it, though, as I've heard way too many people who believe this sort of thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hoping this is a joke .
I could n't bring myself to laugh at it , though , as I 've heard way too many people who believe this sort of thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hoping this is a joke.
I couldn't bring myself to laugh at it, though, as I've heard way too many people who believe this sort of thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077336</id>
	<title>Relevant?</title>
	<author>IndigoDarkwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1258057680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What does game AI have in common with traditional AI? Most traditional AI research is focused on reasoning and pattern matching. Adversarial game AI, particularly of the complexity needed for StarCraft, is usually just a greedy algorithm with preprogrammed responses to predetermined scenarios. Don't get me wrong, game AI tournaments are flashy and stuff, which I guess is why MechMania at the UIUC has been going for 15 years, but they have very little in common with traditional AI.<br>
<br>
Disclaimer: I only took a couple of AI courses in college, but I am a game developer, as well as a repeat competitor at and attendee of MechMania at the UIUC (which seems like a reasonably close analog to this competition).</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does game AI have in common with traditional AI ?
Most traditional AI research is focused on reasoning and pattern matching .
Adversarial game AI , particularly of the complexity needed for StarCraft , is usually just a greedy algorithm with preprogrammed responses to predetermined scenarios .
Do n't get me wrong , game AI tournaments are flashy and stuff , which I guess is why MechMania at the UIUC has been going for 15 years , but they have very little in common with traditional AI .
Disclaimer : I only took a couple of AI courses in college , but I am a game developer , as well as a repeat competitor at and attendee of MechMania at the UIUC ( which seems like a reasonably close analog to this competition ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does game AI have in common with traditional AI?
Most traditional AI research is focused on reasoning and pattern matching.
Adversarial game AI, particularly of the complexity needed for StarCraft, is usually just a greedy algorithm with preprogrammed responses to predetermined scenarios.
Don't get me wrong, game AI tournaments are flashy and stuff, which I guess is why MechMania at the UIUC has been going for 15 years, but they have very little in common with traditional AI.
Disclaimer: I only took a couple of AI courses in college, but I am a game developer, as well as a repeat competitor at and attendee of MechMania at the UIUC (which seems like a reasonably close analog to this competition).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076380</id>
	<title>What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>webdog314</author>
	<datestamp>1258054500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's teach our AI systems how to do battle... against humans. Skynet anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's teach our AI systems how to do battle... against humans .
Skynet anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's teach our AI systems how to do battle... against humans.
Skynet anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076722</id>
	<title>Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258055640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lrn 2 ply n00b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lrn 2 ply n00b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lrn 2 ply n00b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30085394</id>
	<title>Yes, for (s)he/it will save humanity !</title>
	<author>da5idnetlimit.com</author>
	<datestamp>1258118400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Step 1: Playoff/deathmatch style showdown to find the the best of the AIs/human<br>Step 2: The winning AI plays the 'best' human player<br>Step 3: Whip (s)he/it to a top class "Ender's Game" facility and make (s)he/it fight for us (afghanistan, Yemen, Secret Darkside Moonbase against the f&#233;'zer - this week only don't ask about next one....)<br>Step 4: Profit.</p><p>Here, I corrected that for you...8)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 : Playoff/deathmatch style showdown to find the the best of the AIs/humanStep 2 : The winning AI plays the 'best ' human playerStep 3 : Whip ( s ) he/it to a top class " Ender 's Game " facility and make ( s ) he/it fight for us ( afghanistan , Yemen , Secret Darkside Moonbase against the f   'zer - this week only do n't ask about next one.... ) Step 4 : Profit.Here , I corrected that for you...8 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 1: Playoff/deathmatch style showdown to find the the best of the AIs/humanStep 2: The winning AI plays the 'best' human playerStep 3: Whip (s)he/it to a top class "Ender's Game" facility and make (s)he/it fight for us (afghanistan, Yemen, Secret Darkside Moonbase against the fé'zer - this week only don't ask about next one....)Step 4: Profit.Here, I corrected that for you...8)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076998</id>
	<title>Breaking News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258056600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The source code of the first contestant has been published.</p><p>while 1:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; t = Tank()<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush\_(video\_games)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">t.attack()</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The source code of the first contestant has been published.while 1 :         t = Tank ( )         t.attack ( ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The source code of the first contestant has been published.while 1:
        t = Tank()
        t.attack() [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474</id>
	<title>Is StarCraft the right game to use for this?</title>
	<author>ChowRiit</author>
	<datestamp>1258054740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps a game not so dominated by rushing tactics would be a better choice of base game? It definitely seems an interesting idea, but there must be games better suited to an AI contest like this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps a game not so dominated by rushing tactics would be a better choice of base game ?
It definitely seems an interesting idea , but there must be games better suited to an AI contest like this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps a game not so dominated by rushing tactics would be a better choice of base game?
It definitely seems an interesting idea, but there must be games better suited to an AI contest like this...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078558</id>
	<title>Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this?</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1258019040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For logistical reasons there aren't a lot of options. Past competitions have used <a href="http://wargus.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">Wargus</a> [sourceforge.net], since it's open source. Game-industry people tend to roll their eyes at it though, and would prefer a competition using a "real" RTS, i.e. a popular mainstream one. Starcraft is one of the only choices for that, because someone's made <a href="http://eis-blog.ucsc.edu/2009/10/using-starcraft-as-a-game-ai-testbed/" title="ucsc.edu">an API for it</a> [ucsc.edu] that allows you to write external AI to play the game. Most commercial RTSs don't have any way of doing that, unless you were to screen-scrape the display and then have to implement all sorts of computer vision to even figure out what's going on (in which case it'd be more of a vision than an AI-strategy competition).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For logistical reasons there are n't a lot of options .
Past competitions have used Wargus [ sourceforge.net ] , since it 's open source .
Game-industry people tend to roll their eyes at it though , and would prefer a competition using a " real " RTS , i.e .
a popular mainstream one .
Starcraft is one of the only choices for that , because someone 's made an API for it [ ucsc.edu ] that allows you to write external AI to play the game .
Most commercial RTSs do n't have any way of doing that , unless you were to screen-scrape the display and then have to implement all sorts of computer vision to even figure out what 's going on ( in which case it 'd be more of a vision than an AI-strategy competition ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For logistical reasons there aren't a lot of options.
Past competitions have used Wargus [sourceforge.net], since it's open source.
Game-industry people tend to roll their eyes at it though, and would prefer a competition using a "real" RTS, i.e.
a popular mainstream one.
Starcraft is one of the only choices for that, because someone's made an API for it [ucsc.edu] that allows you to write external AI to play the game.
Most commercial RTSs don't have any way of doing that, unless you were to screen-scrape the display and then have to implement all sorts of computer vision to even figure out what's going on (in which case it'd be more of a vision than an AI-strategy competition).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30082046</id>
	<title>Re:Brood War</title>
	<author>Sigma 7</author>
	<datestamp>1258034040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Island maps. Against a Protost with cannons bordering the island 3 rows deep</p></div><p>A human can get past that simply by using heavy airborne artillery, armed with an escort. It would basically need to hit the supply limit as well.</p><p>The reason standard Starcraft AI players can't crack that is because they don't normally last long enough to break through that.  They usually take out inexperienced players by early rushes, and keep persistent patten attacks throughout the game.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Island maps .
Against a Protost with cannons bordering the island 3 rows deepA human can get past that simply by using heavy airborne artillery , armed with an escort .
It would basically need to hit the supply limit as well.The reason standard Starcraft AI players ca n't crack that is because they do n't normally last long enough to break through that .
They usually take out inexperienced players by early rushes , and keep persistent patten attacks throughout the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Island maps.
Against a Protost with cannons bordering the island 3 rows deepA human can get past that simply by using heavy airborne artillery, armed with an escort.
It would basically need to hit the supply limit as well.The reason standard Starcraft AI players can't crack that is because they don't normally last long enough to break through that.
They usually take out inexperienced players by early rushes, and keep persistent patten attacks throughout the game.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076568</id>
	<title>AWESOM-O</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258055100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
1.An AI may not injure a terran being or, through inaction, allow a terran being to come to harm. Only Zerg, Protoss and Xel'Naga..</htmltext>
<tokenext>1.An AI may not injure a terran being or , through inaction , allow a terran being to come to harm .
Only Zerg , Protoss and Xel'Naga. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
1.An AI may not injure a terran being or, through inaction, allow a terran being to come to harm.
Only Zerg, Protoss and Xel'Naga..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076544</id>
	<title>SkyNet....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258054980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is where SkyNet will emerge,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where SkyNet will emerge , : p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is where SkyNet will emerge, :p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076768</id>
	<title>Re:Breakdown</title>
	<author>darkwing\_bmf</author>
	<datestamp>1258055760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's an AI competition, I doubt the AI teams would be given any more information than the human teams had. Computers could be better at micro management, but probably not by enough to make up for humans' ability to adapt to changing circumstances and come up with new tactics on the fly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's an AI competition , I doubt the AI teams would be given any more information than the human teams had .
Computers could be better at micro management , but probably not by enough to make up for humans ' ability to adapt to changing circumstances and come up with new tactics on the fly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's an AI competition, I doubt the AI teams would be given any more information than the human teams had.
Computers could be better at micro management, but probably not by enough to make up for humans' ability to adapt to changing circumstances and come up with new tactics on the fly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077320</id>
	<title>Not that I am the smartest man alive...</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1258057680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just wish everyone would stop calling what we actually have running in today's world with today's commodity computers "artificial intelligence."</p><p>With the exception of Fritz or Rybka, there hasn't been a single instance of AI that I personally have been unable to overcome in a matter of seconds, if not minutes. This has lead me to many a dissatisfaction in modern gaming as an adult. As a child, I believe my senses were overwhelmed by the ambiance and graphics, and I didn't think about AI, which I guess made AI work.</p><p>I vote for renaming it "Artificial Stupidity." Simply for the reason that it can't learn, and I can. Once I learn it, it is no longer a challenge. It never learns to capitalize on my mistakes, no matter what kind of statistical analysis trickery is happening behind the scenes.</p><p>

Definitely, brutally... Artificial Stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just wish everyone would stop calling what we actually have running in today 's world with today 's commodity computers " artificial intelligence .
" With the exception of Fritz or Rybka , there has n't been a single instance of AI that I personally have been unable to overcome in a matter of seconds , if not minutes .
This has lead me to many a dissatisfaction in modern gaming as an adult .
As a child , I believe my senses were overwhelmed by the ambiance and graphics , and I did n't think about AI , which I guess made AI work.I vote for renaming it " Artificial Stupidity .
" Simply for the reason that it ca n't learn , and I can .
Once I learn it , it is no longer a challenge .
It never learns to capitalize on my mistakes , no matter what kind of statistical analysis trickery is happening behind the scenes .
Definitely , brutally... Artificial Stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just wish everyone would stop calling what we actually have running in today's world with today's commodity computers "artificial intelligence.
"With the exception of Fritz or Rybka, there hasn't been a single instance of AI that I personally have been unable to overcome in a matter of seconds, if not minutes.
This has lead me to many a dissatisfaction in modern gaming as an adult.
As a child, I believe my senses were overwhelmed by the ambiance and graphics, and I didn't think about AI, which I guess made AI work.I vote for renaming it "Artificial Stupidity.
" Simply for the reason that it can't learn, and I can.
Once I learn it, it is no longer a challenge.
It never learns to capitalize on my mistakes, no matter what kind of statistical analysis trickery is happening behind the scenes.
Definitely, brutally... Artificial Stupidity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077096</id>
	<title>Re:What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>space\_jake</author>
	<datestamp>1258056900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not worried it'll probably just block the path with supply depots and think it is safe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not worried it 'll probably just block the path with supply depots and think it is safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not worried it'll probably just block the path with supply depots and think it is safe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078608</id>
	<title>LAN play</title>
	<author>kwerle</author>
	<datestamp>1258019220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... I would rather play the old version is all its 640x480 glory then play a LAN game over the WAN. Sure I have the bandwidth, but it's the principle...</p></div><p>So your objection is that you would rather play over a network than over a network.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... I would rather play the old version is all its 640x480 glory then play a LAN game over the WAN .
Sure I have the bandwidth , but it 's the principle...So your objection is that you would rather play over a network than over a network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... I would rather play the old version is all its 640x480 glory then play a LAN game over the WAN.
Sure I have the bandwidth, but it's the principle...So your objection is that you would rather play over a network than over a network.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076472</id>
	<title>Brood War</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1258054740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So they are using the old StarCraft and not the new upcoming StarCraft? I love the old StarCraft. I was really looking forward to the new one until they gutted it by removing LAN play. I would rather play the old version is all its 640x480 glory then play a LAN game over the WAN. Sure I have the bandwidth, but it's the principle. Won't someone think of the Zerglings?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they are using the old StarCraft and not the new upcoming StarCraft ?
I love the old StarCraft .
I was really looking forward to the new one until they gutted it by removing LAN play .
I would rather play the old version is all its 640x480 glory then play a LAN game over the WAN .
Sure I have the bandwidth , but it 's the principle .
Wo n't someone think of the Zerglings ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they are using the old StarCraft and not the new upcoming StarCraft?
I love the old StarCraft.
I was really looking forward to the new one until they gutted it by removing LAN play.
I would rather play the old version is all its 640x480 glory then play a LAN game over the WAN.
Sure I have the bandwidth, but it's the principle.
Won't someone think of the Zerglings?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077008</id>
	<title>More brutal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258056660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am sure the SC AI is hard enough to beat already.
Do we really need more research in this direction?
How about LAN support so I can hunt the forbidden prey: Human?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure the SC AI is hard enough to beat already .
Do we really need more research in this direction ?
How about LAN support so I can hunt the forbidden prey : Human ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure the SC AI is hard enough to beat already.
Do we really need more research in this direction?
How about LAN support so I can hunt the forbidden prey: Human?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077306</id>
	<title>Re:Breakdown</title>
	<author>amoeba1911</author>
	<datestamp>1258057620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another advantage to the AI could include knowing the map layout and what the player has at all times, which is something the original starcraft had so the AI would know whether to rush you or not.</p></div><p>
That's not an advantage AI has, that's just cheating. Circumventing game rules to see full map is just plain cheating, if a player did it you wouldn't say he's any better than the guy who doesn't see the map, same rules apply to AI. It's equivalent to making things 50\% cheaper for the AI or giving it free units... it's just plain cheating.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another advantage to the AI could include knowing the map layout and what the player has at all times , which is something the original starcraft had so the AI would know whether to rush you or not .
That 's not an advantage AI has , that 's just cheating .
Circumventing game rules to see full map is just plain cheating , if a player did it you would n't say he 's any better than the guy who does n't see the map , same rules apply to AI .
It 's equivalent to making things 50 \ % cheaper for the AI or giving it free units... it 's just plain cheating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another advantage to the AI could include knowing the map layout and what the player has at all times, which is something the original starcraft had so the AI would know whether to rush you or not.
That's not an advantage AI has, that's just cheating.
Circumventing game rules to see full map is just plain cheating, if a player did it you wouldn't say he's any better than the guy who doesn't see the map, same rules apply to AI.
It's equivalent to making things 50\% cheaper for the AI or giving it free units... it's just plain cheating.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30084080</id>
	<title>Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this?</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1258054440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>es now are based on quick expansions example 12nexus 14cc 12 hatch</i></p><p>12 hatch you definitely see; that's one of the most common openings for zerg, I think in all three matchups. 12 nexus you'll see occasionally, but forge fast expand is more common, especially vs zerg. (The thing that will change there is whether the protoss plants the nexus or a photon cannon first; that decision is based on scouting information.) However, 14cc is a pretty risky strategy, and at least at the level of pro play is considered a bit cheesy. For instance, if you are terran vs a zerg, if you 14cc and the zerg 9 pools (not uncommon even if 12 pool or 12 hatch is more common), you're almost certainly sunk. 1rax or 1fact into expand (e.g. the fake double) is much more common for terran.</p><p>The overall gist of what you say is right though; SC has gotten way more macro heavy over the past few years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>es now are based on quick expansions example 12nexus 14cc 12 hatch12 hatch you definitely see ; that 's one of the most common openings for zerg , I think in all three matchups .
12 nexus you 'll see occasionally , but forge fast expand is more common , especially vs zerg .
( The thing that will change there is whether the protoss plants the nexus or a photon cannon first ; that decision is based on scouting information .
) However , 14cc is a pretty risky strategy , and at least at the level of pro play is considered a bit cheesy .
For instance , if you are terran vs a zerg , if you 14cc and the zerg 9 pools ( not uncommon even if 12 pool or 12 hatch is more common ) , you 're almost certainly sunk .
1rax or 1fact into expand ( e.g .
the fake double ) is much more common for terran.The overall gist of what you say is right though ; SC has gotten way more macro heavy over the past few years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>es now are based on quick expansions example 12nexus 14cc 12 hatch12 hatch you definitely see; that's one of the most common openings for zerg, I think in all three matchups.
12 nexus you'll see occasionally, but forge fast expand is more common, especially vs zerg.
(The thing that will change there is whether the protoss plants the nexus or a photon cannon first; that decision is based on scouting information.
) However, 14cc is a pretty risky strategy, and at least at the level of pro play is considered a bit cheesy.
For instance, if you are terran vs a zerg, if you 14cc and the zerg 9 pools (not uncommon even if 12 pool or 12 hatch is more common), you're almost certainly sunk.
1rax or 1fact into expand (e.g.
the fake double) is much more common for terran.The overall gist of what you say is right though; SC has gotten way more macro heavy over the past few years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076532</id>
	<title>Breakdown</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1258054920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human Advantages:<br>Advanced Prediction<br>Flexible Stategies<br>Arguably Faster Learning</p><p>AI Advantages:<br>Able to command all units at once<br>Usually More efficient w/ resources<br>Instant Macro management</p><p>Another advantage to the AI could include knowing the map layout and what the player has at all times, which is something the original starcraft had so the AI would know whether to rush you or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human Advantages : Advanced PredictionFlexible StategiesArguably Faster LearningAI Advantages : Able to command all units at onceUsually More efficient w/ resourcesInstant Macro managementAnother advantage to the AI could include knowing the map layout and what the player has at all times , which is something the original starcraft had so the AI would know whether to rush you or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human Advantages:Advanced PredictionFlexible StategiesArguably Faster LearningAI Advantages:Able to command all units at onceUsually More efficient w/ resourcesInstant Macro managementAnother advantage to the AI could include knowing the map layout and what the player has at all times, which is something the original starcraft had so the AI would know whether to rush you or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076378</id>
	<title>Does AI have to be good?</title>
	<author>hitnrunrambler</author>
	<datestamp>1258054500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just smarter than the random BNET player?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just smarter than the random BNET player ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just smarter than the random BNET player?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30086620</id>
	<title>Re:Does AI have to be good?</title>
	<author>srk2040</author>
	<datestamp>1258126920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So they gonna come up with AI that deals with the cannon rushers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they gon na come up with AI that deals with the cannon rushers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they gonna come up with AI that deals with the cannon rushers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076678</id>
	<title>Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this?</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1258055460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>StarCraft is only dominated by rush tactics when the players don't have the skills to defend against a rush.  In StarCraft attempting a rush dooms you to failure if the rush doesn't fatally wound your opponent ('cause you stunted your economy to build your rushers).  Correctly defending against a rush is mostly micromanagement (using your workers correctly to defend, which means constantly issuing them the attack orders they need since they won't attack on their own, while keeping some working on your economy).  AIs should excel at micromanagement.  I don't think rushing would be a problem in a StarCraft AI match.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>StarCraft is only dominated by rush tactics when the players do n't have the skills to defend against a rush .
In StarCraft attempting a rush dooms you to failure if the rush does n't fatally wound your opponent ( 'cause you stunted your economy to build your rushers ) .
Correctly defending against a rush is mostly micromanagement ( using your workers correctly to defend , which means constantly issuing them the attack orders they need since they wo n't attack on their own , while keeping some working on your economy ) .
AIs should excel at micromanagement .
I do n't think rushing would be a problem in a StarCraft AI match .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>StarCraft is only dominated by rush tactics when the players don't have the skills to defend against a rush.
In StarCraft attempting a rush dooms you to failure if the rush doesn't fatally wound your opponent ('cause you stunted your economy to build your rushers).
Correctly defending against a rush is mostly micromanagement (using your workers correctly to defend, which means constantly issuing them the attack orders they need since they won't attack on their own, while keeping some working on your economy).
AIs should excel at micromanagement.
I don't think rushing would be a problem in a StarCraft AI match.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077230</id>
	<title>At least now...</title>
	<author>spammeister</author>
	<datestamp>1258057380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...we know when Starcraft II will be released. After October 1st 2010.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...we know when Starcraft II will be released .
After October 1st 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...we know when Starcraft II will be released.
After October 1st 2010.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076994</id>
	<title>I got it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258056600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>while (perform\_zerg\_rush()){ chat('kekekeke ^\_^'); }</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>while ( perform \ _zerg \ _rush ( ) ) { chat ( 'kekekeke ^ \ _ ^ ' ) ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while (perform\_zerg\_rush()){ chat('kekekeke ^\_^'); }</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076788</id>
	<title>Re:Breakdown</title>
	<author>aliquis</author>
	<datestamp>1258055880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human Advantages:<br>Imagined Prediction Advantage<br>Flexible Stategies<br>Arguably Faster Learning</p><p>AI Advantages:<br>Able to command all units at once<br>Usually More efficient w/ resources<br>Instant Macro management</p><p>Korean Advantages:<br>Superior Strategies<br>Advanced Prediction<br>Flexible Tactics<br>Arguably Faster Learning<br>Able to command all units at once<br>Usually More efficient w/ resources<br>Instant Macro management</p><p>Fixed that for you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human Advantages : Imagined Prediction AdvantageFlexible StategiesArguably Faster LearningAI Advantages : Able to command all units at onceUsually More efficient w/ resourcesInstant Macro managementKorean Advantages : Superior StrategiesAdvanced PredictionFlexible TacticsArguably Faster LearningAble to command all units at onceUsually More efficient w/ resourcesInstant Macro managementFixed that for you : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human Advantages:Imagined Prediction AdvantageFlexible StategiesArguably Faster LearningAI Advantages:Able to command all units at onceUsually More efficient w/ resourcesInstant Macro managementKorean Advantages:Superior StrategiesAdvanced PredictionFlexible TacticsArguably Faster LearningAble to command all units at onceUsually More efficient w/ resourcesInstant Macro managementFixed that for you :D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30080300</id>
	<title>Re:Does AI have to be good?</title>
	<author>COMON$</author>
	<datestamp>1258025100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One can get bored of Starcraft?  Who knew....I still play on a regular basis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One can get bored of Starcraft ?
Who knew....I still play on a regular basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One can get bored of Starcraft?
Who knew....I still play on a regular basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077354</id>
	<title>Re:Breakdown</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1258057740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The abiltiy to command multiple units at once is huge.  Instead of moving groups, you move tactical squads.  Micro manage a battle while doing a sneak attack.  The level of sophistication allows for tactics otherwise unavailable.<br>Of course, there might be human players that are able to do this at a level near enough to the machine to negate the usefulness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The abiltiy to command multiple units at once is huge .
Instead of moving groups , you move tactical squads .
Micro manage a battle while doing a sneak attack .
The level of sophistication allows for tactics otherwise unavailable.Of course , there might be human players that are able to do this at a level near enough to the machine to negate the usefulness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The abiltiy to command multiple units at once is huge.
Instead of moving groups, you move tactical squads.
Micro manage a battle while doing a sneak attack.
The level of sophistication allows for tactics otherwise unavailable.Of course, there might be human players that are able to do this at a level near enough to the machine to negate the usefulness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077038</id>
	<title>Re:Does AI have to be good?</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1258056720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> does AI need to be good?</p></div> </blockquote><p> no, but Blizzard does want to be lazy and outsource AI development.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>does AI need to be good ?
no , but Blizzard does want to be lazy and outsource AI development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> does AI need to be good?
no, but Blizzard does want to be lazy and outsource AI development.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077330</id>
	<title>Re:Brood War</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1258057680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It needs an AI that can handle the following.</p><p>Island maps.  Against a Protost with cannons bordering the island 3 rows deep.  Most human players can get past that.  For the computer it always kept me safe.  Of course there was one time I played stricly defensive and have the entire island filled with cannons.  It took a good player 45 minutes to get to me. (and killed a medium level player) who was helping.</p><p>An other blood bath was a map No Gas. Where there was a river and a small bridge to cross.  All with a bunch of cannons around them.  I have seen only one person to get past that and it was bloody very bloody.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It needs an AI that can handle the following.Island maps .
Against a Protost with cannons bordering the island 3 rows deep .
Most human players can get past that .
For the computer it always kept me safe .
Of course there was one time I played stricly defensive and have the entire island filled with cannons .
It took a good player 45 minutes to get to me .
( and killed a medium level player ) who was helping.An other blood bath was a map No Gas .
Where there was a river and a small bridge to cross .
All with a bunch of cannons around them .
I have seen only one person to get past that and it was bloody very bloody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It needs an AI that can handle the following.Island maps.
Against a Protost with cannons bordering the island 3 rows deep.
Most human players can get past that.
For the computer it always kept me safe.
Of course there was one time I played stricly defensive and have the entire island filled with cannons.
It took a good player 45 minutes to get to me.
(and killed a medium level player) who was helping.An other blood bath was a map No Gas.
Where there was a river and a small bridge to cross.
All with a bunch of cannons around them.
I have seen only one person to get past that and it was bloody very bloody.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077060</id>
	<title>Re:What could possibly go wrong?</title>
	<author>otravi</author>
	<datestamp>1258056780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember Skynet back when it was called Google!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember Skynet back when it was called Google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember Skynet back when it was called Google!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30079094</id>
	<title>Re:Brood War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258021080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're on the same LAN as the other players it will use the LAN connection to play, you just start the game through bnet. At least come out and say you're QQing about not being able to pirate the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're on the same LAN as the other players it will use the LAN connection to play , you just start the game through bnet .
At least come out and say you 're QQing about not being able to pirate the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're on the same LAN as the other players it will use the LAN connection to play, you just start the game through bnet.
At least come out and say you're QQing about not being able to pirate the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076656</id>
	<title>Possibility for emergent gameplay?</title>
	<author>StreetStealth</author>
	<datestamp>1258055400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if, through the developers' virtual arms race, the AIs discover that rushing isn't actually the best way to win? Given enough room to experiment, could new, anti-rush gambits emerge that human players wouldn't have thought of?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if , through the developers ' virtual arms race , the AIs discover that rushing is n't actually the best way to win ?
Given enough room to experiment , could new , anti-rush gambits emerge that human players would n't have thought of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if, through the developers' virtual arms race, the AIs discover that rushing isn't actually the best way to win?
Given enough room to experiment, could new, anti-rush gambits emerge that human players wouldn't have thought of?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078330</id>
	<title>Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this?</title>
	<author>krnpimpsta</author>
	<datestamp>1258018140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Perhaps a game not so dominated by rushing tactics would be a better choice of base game? It definitely seems an interesting idea, but there must be games better suited to an AI contest like this...</p></div></blockquote><p>
Perhaps the concept of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock\_attack" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">shock tactics</a> [wikipedia.org], such as "rushing" have been evolving for centuries and may just be one of the more effective battle strategies in games and real conflicts.  The US has their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock\_and\_awe" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Shock and Awe</a> [wikipedia.org], the Germans have their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Blitzkrieg,</a> [wikipedia.org] and etc.<br> <br>
Wikipedia's "common interpretation of blitzkrieg":
The word, meaning "lightning war", was associated with a deliberate strategy of quick and decisive short battles to <strong>deliver a knock out blow to an enemy state before it could fully mobilize</strong>.
<br> <br>
Sounds like rushing to me.  Maybe the fact that rushing is so effective in so many games is because it really is a valid strategy?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps a game not so dominated by rushing tactics would be a better choice of base game ?
It definitely seems an interesting idea , but there must be games better suited to an AI contest like this.. . Perhaps the concept of shock tactics [ wikipedia.org ] , such as " rushing " have been evolving for centuries and may just be one of the more effective battle strategies in games and real conflicts .
The US has their Shock and Awe [ wikipedia.org ] , the Germans have their Blitzkrieg , [ wikipedia.org ] and etc .
Wikipedia 's " common interpretation of blitzkrieg " : The word , meaning " lightning war " , was associated with a deliberate strategy of quick and decisive short battles to deliver a knock out blow to an enemy state before it could fully mobilize .
Sounds like rushing to me .
Maybe the fact that rushing is so effective in so many games is because it really is a valid strategy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps a game not so dominated by rushing tactics would be a better choice of base game?
It definitely seems an interesting idea, but there must be games better suited to an AI contest like this...
Perhaps the concept of shock tactics [wikipedia.org], such as "rushing" have been evolving for centuries and may just be one of the more effective battle strategies in games and real conflicts.
The US has their Shock and Awe [wikipedia.org], the Germans have their Blitzkrieg, [wikipedia.org] and etc.
Wikipedia's "common interpretation of blitzkrieg":
The word, meaning "lightning war", was associated with a deliberate strategy of quick and decisive short battles to deliver a knock out blow to an enemy state before it could fully mobilize.
Sounds like rushing to me.
Maybe the fact that rushing is so effective in so many games is because it really is a valid strategy?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076838</id>
	<title>Restrictions?</title>
	<author>Goateee</author>
	<datestamp>1258056060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if the bots will have any restrictions on apm and such. I could imagine the terror of trying to defend against 10 individually controlled mutalisks harrasing all my expansions at the same time, from all directions. And without any long-range trapping mechanism, or fast air-to-air unit, there is no way to catch them. And if I need cannons or turrets or units at all angles of attack, I will certainly lose the macro battle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the bots will have any restrictions on apm and such .
I could imagine the terror of trying to defend against 10 individually controlled mutalisks harrasing all my expansions at the same time , from all directions .
And without any long-range trapping mechanism , or fast air-to-air unit , there is no way to catch them .
And if I need cannons or turrets or units at all angles of attack , I will certainly lose the macro battle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the bots will have any restrictions on apm and such.
I could imagine the terror of trying to defend against 10 individually controlled mutalisks harrasing all my expansions at the same time, from all directions.
And without any long-range trapping mechanism, or fast air-to-air unit, there is no way to catch them.
And if I need cannons or turrets or units at all angles of attack, I will certainly lose the macro battle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077888</id>
	<title>Re:Brood War</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258016460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Command Syntax of the ultimate computer languge: DoWhatIWant() DoIFaster(Function), eg. DoItFaster(DoWhatIWant())</p></div><p>
the First DoItFaster is missing the 't' in 'It'</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Command Syntax of the ultimate computer languge : DoWhatIWant ( ) DoIFaster ( Function ) , eg .
DoItFaster ( DoWhatIWant ( ) ) the First DoItFaster is missing the 't ' in 'It '</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Command Syntax of the ultimate computer languge: DoWhatIWant() DoIFaster(Function), eg.
DoItFaster(DoWhatIWant())
the First DoItFaster is missing the 't' in 'It'
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30084634</id>
	<title>Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this?</title>
	<author>l0cust</author>
	<datestamp>1258107000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Congrats. Your comment made it to <a href="http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic\_id=105570" title="teamliquid.net" rel="nofollow">teamliquid's post on this competition</a> [teamliquid.net]<blockquote><div><p>
EDIT: The competition's also been slashdotted, where it's being discussed by various people who don't know too much:
<br> <br>
<i>Perhaps a game not so dominated by rushing tactics would be a better choice of base game? It definitely seems an interesting idea, but there must be games better suited to an AI contest like this...</i>
<br>

<br>
lol.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congrats .
Your comment made it to teamliquid 's post on this competition [ teamliquid.net ] EDIT : The competition 's also been slashdotted , where it 's being discussed by various people who do n't know too much : Perhaps a game not so dominated by rushing tactics would be a better choice of base game ?
It definitely seems an interesting idea , but there must be games better suited to an AI contest like this.. . lol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congrats.
Your comment made it to teamliquid's post on this competition [teamliquid.net]
EDIT: The competition's also been slashdotted, where it's being discussed by various people who don't know too much:
 
Perhaps a game not so dominated by rushing tactics would be a better choice of base game?
It definitely seems an interesting idea, but there must be games better suited to an AI contest like this...



lol.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076664</id>
	<title>Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this?</title>
	<author>TheRealMindChild</author>
	<datestamp>1258055400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rushing is an elementary strategy. You should learn to defend against it rather than complaining that it isn't far (in a war simulation game no less).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rushing is an elementary strategy .
You should learn to defend against it rather than complaining that it is n't far ( in a war simulation game no less ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rushing is an elementary strategy.
You should learn to defend against it rather than complaining that it isn't far (in a war simulation game no less).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077668</id>
	<title>Re:Does AI have to be good?</title>
	<author>Edmund Blackadder</author>
	<datestamp>1258059000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would actually be very difficult to make it better than the random BNET player. Starcraft players are getting very good. And it is pretty hard for a computer to beat a human for an RTS in general (without cheating of course).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would actually be very difficult to make it better than the random BNET player .
Starcraft players are getting very good .
And it is pretty hard for a computer to beat a human for an RTS in general ( without cheating of course ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would actually be very difficult to make it better than the random BNET player.
Starcraft players are getting very good.
And it is pretty hard for a computer to beat a human for an RTS in general (without cheating of course).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076640</id>
	<title>Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258055340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Go watch the professionals play and see how often they rush. Not that often anymore. Modern Starcraft is dominated by Fast Expanding, which is quite the opposite of a rush.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have no idea what you 're talking about do you ?
Go watch the professionals play and see how often they rush .
Not that often anymore .
Modern Starcraft is dominated by Fast Expanding , which is quite the opposite of a rush .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have no idea what you're talking about do you?
Go watch the professionals play and see how often they rush.
Not that often anymore.
Modern Starcraft is dominated by Fast Expanding, which is quite the opposite of a rush.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076648</id>
	<title>Offtopic, sorry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258055400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, this is only tangentially connected to this story. I've been looking for a recent RTS game to play. Nothing like Starcraft, Command &amp; Conquer, World in Conflict or, say, Supreme Commander. I was thinking closer to Age of Empires, Empire Earth, or more specifically Rise of Nations. Base building, resource micromanagement, age advancement etc. Any smart Slashdot gamers have any suggestions?</p><p>TIA, and sorry about the off-topic. Any suggestions would be recommended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , this is only tangentially connected to this story .
I 've been looking for a recent RTS game to play .
Nothing like Starcraft , Command &amp; Conquer , World in Conflict or , say , Supreme Commander .
I was thinking closer to Age of Empires , Empire Earth , or more specifically Rise of Nations .
Base building , resource micromanagement , age advancement etc .
Any smart Slashdot gamers have any suggestions ? TIA , and sorry about the off-topic .
Any suggestions would be recommended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, this is only tangentially connected to this story.
I've been looking for a recent RTS game to play.
Nothing like Starcraft, Command &amp; Conquer, World in Conflict or, say, Supreme Commander.
I was thinking closer to Age of Empires, Empire Earth, or more specifically Rise of Nations.
Base building, resource micromanagement, age advancement etc.
Any smart Slashdot gamers have any suggestions?TIA, and sorry about the off-topic.
Any suggestions would be recommended.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078060</id>
	<title>Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1258017060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not "rushing". It's figuring out where the enemy is and seizing the initiative. I suspect even games that have mechanics that discourage swarming a base early, still have early game tricks that an aggressive player can use to mess up someone's start (say sniping targets of opportunity or blowing up some easy to kill structures).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not " rushing " .
It 's figuring out where the enemy is and seizing the initiative .
I suspect even games that have mechanics that discourage swarming a base early , still have early game tricks that an aggressive player can use to mess up someone 's start ( say sniping targets of opportunity or blowing up some easy to kill structures ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not "rushing".
It's figuring out where the enemy is and seizing the initiative.
I suspect even games that have mechanics that discourage swarming a base early, still have early game tricks that an aggressive player can use to mess up someone's start (say sniping targets of opportunity or blowing up some easy to kill structures).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30084522</id>
	<title>Wait, are you saying...</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1258105140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's teach our AI systems how to do battle... against humans. Skynet anyone?</p></div><p>The robots will be no match for John "Bisu" Connor!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's teach our AI systems how to do battle... against humans .
Skynet anyone ? The robots will be no match for John " Bisu " Connor !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's teach our AI systems how to do battle... against humans.
Skynet anyone?The robots will be no match for John "Bisu" Connor!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078784</id>
	<title>Re:Breakdown</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258019880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not funny at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not funny at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not funny at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077904</id>
	<title>Re:Does AI have to be good?</title>
	<author>Asclepius99</author>
	<datestamp>1258016520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you think about it, it's over 10 years since even Brood War came out.  So I'd assume that the average person still playing (besides people that only do Use Map Settings) probably gets better each year as more and more people get bored of the game leaving mostly hardcore fans.  I'd also assume that for the most part only hardcore fans are going to go to something like this for a chance to play against the AIs.  So yeah, I'm guessing they'd have to be pretty good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think about it , it 's over 10 years since even Brood War came out .
So I 'd assume that the average person still playing ( besides people that only do Use Map Settings ) probably gets better each year as more and more people get bored of the game leaving mostly hardcore fans .
I 'd also assume that for the most part only hardcore fans are going to go to something like this for a chance to play against the AIs .
So yeah , I 'm guessing they 'd have to be pretty good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think about it, it's over 10 years since even Brood War came out.
So I'd assume that the average person still playing (besides people that only do Use Map Settings) probably gets better each year as more and more people get bored of the game leaving mostly hardcore fans.
I'd also assume that for the most part only hardcore fans are going to go to something like this for a chance to play against the AIs.
So yeah, I'm guessing they'd have to be pretty good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076378</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30080300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30079094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30086620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30084080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30085394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30085386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30084634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30084522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_12_1729217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30082046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1729217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076544
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1729217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30080300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077996
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30085394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30086620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30085386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1729217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1729217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1729217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30082046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30079094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1729217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1729217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1729217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30084522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1729217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_12_1729217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30084634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30078388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30084080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30077462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_12_1729217.30076662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
