• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Trillion Credit Squadron, the 1981 tournament!

R

Ron Gianti

SOC-11
I realize I'm 30 years late to this party, so forgive my enthusiasm! :D

I had the LBB's when I was a teen, but never went beyond that and never really got to play, so now I'm reading Trillion Credit Squadron for the first time and came across the tournament rules. Pretty slick, it says that in 1981 the max tech level would be 12, then in 1982, 13, 1983, 14. So I did a google search, to see how everything turned out and came across this in an article about artificial intelligence (in the article, AM and Euristo are AI...):

http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/12759/page2/

AM was followed by Eurisko (the present tense of the Greek eureka, and root of the word heuristic), which improved on Automated Mathematician by adding the ability to discover not only new concepts but new heuristics. At the 1981 Traveller Trillion Credit Squadron tournament, a sort of intellectuals' war game, Eurisko defeated all comers by outmaneuvering its rivals' lumbering battleships with a fleet of agile little spacecraft no one else had envisioned. Within two years the organizers were threatening to cancel the tournament if Lenat entered again. Taking the cue and content with his rank of intergalactic admiral, he began searching for a new challenge.

Slick! So a computer program won the event 2 years in a row. If I read this right, the computer figured out that it could destroy its own damaged ships to keep up the speed of the fleet. Is there more information on the whole tournament or is everything but this tidbit lost to 25 years of time?
 
Last edited:
spank said:
I was thinking the same thing, I would love to see the make up of those fleets.
Click to expand...

Google "Eurisko fleet" and follow where it leads you.

Two caveats: the fleet isn't all that impressive; the legend has been over-hyped and piled with so much hyperbole over the years you'd think it was some sort of AI breakthrough, rather than just PR spin.

And the original fleet violated the rules of the tournament (since it relied on drop tanks to meet the Jump requirement) and should have been disqualified from the outset. Much of Eurisko's success rested on incompetent refereeing.

At the end of the day, all Eurisko did was iteratively apply game theory to the inadequately-playtested High Guard design system until, after repeated adjustments by its programmer, it zeroed in on where the game system breaks.

A fairly trivial computing exercise, once put into proper perspective... also, since I personally was unable to compete in the tournaments, it cannot be said that Eurisko proved itself invincible by any stretch.

But from the breathless, celebratory press, you'd think Eurisko was a self-aware AI that solved Fermat's Last Theorem or something -- and somehow belongs in the same league as all those supercomputers that played chess against Kasparov... which it just plain doesn't.

In actuality, it was nowhere even close to "intelligent"...

For the record, I have the original Eurisko fleet specs archived offline somewhere as an historical curiosity, if you can't run them down on Google...
 
I was happy that a fleet of many small ships defeated a fleet of superships.

A thorn in the side of those 400,000 ton dreadnaughts, and a blow for small ship universes everywhere!

:)
 
The fleet was detailed in an issue of JTAS (should be available in the reprints). I think it was in the 10-19 issue range.

The fleet was about 80 or so ships, most being heavy armoured vessels of about 15-20ktns (from memory).

Cheers
Richard
 
googled

I google this a couple weeks ago with little success. Does anyone have the JTAS reprints from the reprint series, is it in there?

But from the breathless, celebratory press, you'd think Eurisko was a self-aware AI that solved Fermat's Last Theorem or something -- and somehow belongs in the same league as all those supercomputers that played chess against Kasparov... which it just plain doesn't.
Click to expand...
Much of the credit here should go to the tending of the process, not the e]

I agree, even though I wasn't aware at the time. The articles I read when I googled read much like you described. Still it would be interesting to see what kinds of ship the rule favored, or encouraged.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
spank said:
I agree, even though I wasn't aware at the time. The articles I read when I googled read much like you described. Still it would be interesting to see what kinds of ship the rule favored, or encouraged.
Click to expand...

Here, fresh from my archives, is the meat of the first year's squadron.

Wonky USENET formatting via Deja News, but you can get the gist of it...



Code: 
Re: EURISKO and Trillion Credit Squadron 
Author: Nyrath the nearly wise <nyrath@clark.net> 
Date: 1997/07/28 
Forum: rec.games.programmer 

more headers author posting history 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darren Reid <shokwave@nbnet.nb.ca> writes:
>
>The ships were designed using GDWs High Guard rules, and these rules
>definately had problems with extremes. It does not surprise me that
>someone was able to code a system to find the loopholes in the system.
>I'd love to see this guys fleet.

Winning TCS fleet - TL 12

Four Garter class:
TB-Garter TB- K1567F3- B41106- 34009- 1 MCr 17,584.104
Bearing C 1 EE 7 
12,000 tons
Batteries C 1 EE 7 crew=3D170
Agility=3D4; Fuel=3D840; Cargo=3D4.3 low=3D170
Note: L-Hyd drop tanks add 6000 tons of fuel and mass,change the
agility
to 4, and cost MCr6.01.(TB-K1344F3) The ship is designed to manuever when
carrying up to 72,000 tons of drop tanks and one Wasp fighter.

Four Cisor class:
BD-Cisor BD- K9525F3- E41100- 340C5- 0 MCr22,291.175
Bearing 1 11 1U 19,980 tons
Batteries 1 11 1U 
crew=3D ?
Agility=3D0; Fuel=3D999; Cargo=3D19.1 low=3D95
Note: L-Hyd drop tanks add 9,990 tons of fuel and mass, and cost MCr10.
(BD- L9313F3) The ship is designed to manuever when carrying up to 29,970
tons of drop tanks.

Three Queller class:
BH-Queller BH- K1526F3- B41106- 34Q02- 1 MCr27,802.392
Bearing Z 1 NN1 N 
19,600 tons
Batteries Z 1 NN1 N crew=3D263
Agility=3D0; Fuel=3D1,176; Cargo=3D10.72 low=3D232; marines=3D200
Note: L-hyd drop tanks add 9,800 tons of fuel and mass, and cost MCr9.81.
(BH-L1314F3) The ship is designed to manuever when carrying up to 29,400
tons of drop tanks and two fighters (one Wasp and one Bee).

Seventy-five Eurisko class:
BA-Eurisko Ba- K952563- J41100- 34003- 0 MCr13,030.385
Bearing 1 11 V 
11,100 tons
Batteries 1 11 V crew=3D131
Agility=3D2; Fuel=3D555; Cargo=3D8 low=3D0; marines=3D35
Note: L-hyd drop tanks add 5,550 tons of fuel and mass, change the
agility to 1, and cost 5.56. (BA-K931363) The ship is designed to manuever
when carrying up to 16,650 tons of drop tanks.

Seven Wasp class:
IL-Wasp Il- A90ZZF2- J00000- 00009- 0 MCr896.75
Bearing 1 1,000 tons
Batteries 1 Crew=3D19
Agility=3D6; Fuel=3D60; Cargo=3D0 low=3D0

Three Bee class:
FF-Bee FF- 0906661- A30000- 00001- 0 MCr127.945
Bearing 1 2 99 tons
Batteries 1 2 crew=3D2
Agility=3D0; Fuel=3D5.94; Cargo=3D0

>The results of a tournament illustrate the power of a human/AI team.
>Traveller TCS is a futuristic naval war game, played in accordance with two
>hundred pages of rules specifying design, cost, and performance constraints
>for the fleet ("TCS" stands for "Trillion Credit Squadron"). Professor Lenat
>.gave EURISKO these rules, a set of starting heuristics, and a program to
>simulate a battle between two fleets. He reports that "it then designed
>fleet after fleet, using the simulator as the 'natural selection' mechanism
>as it 'evolved' better and better fleet designs." The program would run all
>night, designing, testing, and drawing lessons from the results. In the
>morning Lenat would cull the designs and help it along. He credits about 60
>percent of the results to himself, and about 40 percent to EURISKO.
>
>Lenat and EURISKO entered the 1981 national Traveller TCS tournament 
with a
>strange-looking fleet. The other contestants laughed at it, then lost to it.
>The Lenat/EURISKO fleet won every round, emerging as the national champion.
>As Lenat notes, "This win is made more significant by the fact that no one
>connected with the program had ever played this game before the tournament,
>or seen it played, and there were no practice rounds."
>
>In 1982 the competition sponsors changed the rules. Lenat and EURISKO
>entered a very different fleet. Other contestants again laughed at it, then
>lost. Lenat and EURISKO again won the national championship.
>
>In 1983 the competition sponsors told Lenat that if he entered and won
>again, the competition would be canceled. Lenat bowed out.
>
>References:
>
>... Developed by Professor Douglas Lenat ... and described by him in a
>series of articles on "The Nature of Heuristics" (Artificial Intelligence,
>Vol. 19, pp. 189-249, 1982; Vol. 21, pp. 31-59 and 61-98, 1983; Vol. 23, pp.
>269-93, 1984).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Later years saw the abandonment of L-Hyd tanks [and let this serve as an object lesson in why drop tanks should be driven from YTU without mercy, by the way], but with the similar design principles applied... and against some opponents who seemed to still not have figured out why a competent HG2 naval architect would keep building at sub-20-kton displacement whenever possible and sub-75-kton displacement if it killed him... wargaming can be a difficult skill to master, I suppose...

The Cardinal Rule of TCS: there are two basic types of fleets for head-to-head dueling: 1) serious-contender Battle Rider Squadrons and 2) chump Battleship Squadrons...

Which is why TCS is perhaps not the best -- and shouldn't be the only -- context for practical naval strategizing....
 
I dunno....
While I've never played in a tournament, it looks to me that such heavy reliance on drop tanks would be a bad thing in a long, drawn out, campaign game.

It might win battles, but could it win the war?
 
Ishmael said:
I dunno....
While I've never played in a tournament, it looks to me that such heavy reliance on drop tanks would be a bad thing in a long, drawn out, campaign game.

It might win battles, but could it win the war?
Click to expand...

Unlikely.

The Eurisko fleets, like all winning TCS fleets, were designed for a single, artificial purpose: one-time, head-to-head space-superiority duels against opponents built on an identical budget.

Which is a scenario that pretty much never arises in actual military operations against an enemy in the field... if your Admiralty has any competence whatsoever and they've at least heard of Sun Tzu...
 
Last edited:
Actually, this Lenat/Eurisko business is (IMHO, at least) a strong illustration of rules lawyering. While the tournament rules didn't specifically restrict the use of jump tanks what real navy would base its strategic manouver ability on drop tanks for mor than one use? Those ship designs clearly use the idea of multiple mounted drop tanks for the specific purpose of getting past a rule Lenat didn't like.

And in the second year, the rules didn't specifically outlaw large groups of buffered planetoids.

Clearly this guy spent alot of time trying to find loopholes in the rules, just like what lawyers do.

Not someone I would appreciate in my game. I prefer those that act in the spirit of a rule.
 
pendragonman said:
While the tournament rules didn't specifically restrict the use of jump tanks what real navy would base its strategic manouver ability on drop tanks for mor than one use?
Click to expand...

The Spartan Space Navy.
"Victory or Death!"

And in the second year, the rules didn't specifically outlaw large groups of buffered planetoids.
Click to expand...


What about large groups of buffered planetiods with multiple drop tanks?
Asteroids become a planets most important military asset. :)
 
It would be interesting to see the '82 buffered planetoid fleet if you have that one archived anywhere.

Cheers
 
pendragonman said:
Actually, this Lenat/Eurisko business is (IMHO, at least) a strong illustration of rules lawyering. While the tournament rules didn't specifically restrict the use of jump tanks what real navy would base its strategic manouver ability on drop tanks for mor than one use? Those ship designs clearly use the idea of multiple mounted drop tanks for the specific purpose of getting past a rule Lenat didn't like.
Click to expand...
Lenat didn't like nor dislike any of the rules in the tournament. The rules of the game were of little aesthetic value to him (he barely even knew what Traveller was, as I recall). He only regarded the High Guard Rules and TCS tournament as a venue to test out his iterative AI concepts.

And in the second year, the rules didn't specifically outlaw large groups of buffered planetoids.

Clearly this guy spent alot of time trying to find loopholes in the rules, just like what lawyers do.
Click to expand...
No, that's a misinterpretation of his methods and motives. Lenat wasn't seeking out loopholes to exploit -- his computer program was. If Lenat "knew" about the loopholes of any particular rule or tournament, it was only because they were the ones his computer dug up as a result of the thousands of practice engagements and tweaks it ran against itself, in its own little head. Lenat may not have even known that they were "exploits," until someone actually told him they were.

And while the Eurisko fleets were an abomination, they weren't the result of rules-lawyering. A computer program has no idea what the intended "spirit" of any set of rules is, beyond what the rules themselves define.

Not someone I would appreciate in my game. I prefer those that act in the spirit of a rule.
Click to expand...
Well, fortunately for both of us, Lenat had little interest in actually playing Traveller, anyway.
 
That's why Lenat and Eurisko are so interesting to me: for Lenat, the game was entirely incidental; it happened to be an apt field for Eurisko to be tested in. What would have been really neat is seeing how Eurisko did at *other* games. Chess, anyone?
 
Hey, guys. First post here. Fun reading as I'm a CT fan and role playing grognard.

I'd just like to mention that Dr. Lenat is a fine gentleman, unassuming and very gracious. He would certainly make an excellent Traveller player!

Look at it this way: the Traveller game was part of the development of an actual futuristic technology! I think that's rather nice actually.
 
Ron Gianti said:
At the 1981 Traveller Trillion Credit Squadron tournament, a sort of intellectuals’ war game, Eurisko defeated all comers by outmaneuvering its rivals’ lumbering battleships with a fleet of agile little spacecraft no one else had envisioned.
Click to expand...
That’s not entirely true; the second-place contestant in the 1981 Origins tournament also had a squadron of numerous agile little spacecraft, but didn’t have an “unhittable” ship that was analogous to Lenat’s Wasp-class, and resigned once Lenat explained what his plan would be in their battle.

boomslang said:
And the original fleet violated the rules of the tournament (since it relied on drop tanks to meet the Jump requirement) and should have been disqualified from the outset.
Click to expand...
Drop tanks weren’t forbidden from tournament squadrons until 1983; they were allowed in 1981 and 1982.

boomslang said:
A fairly trivial computing exercise, once put into proper perspective…
Click to expand...
“Fairly trivial”—in 1981? Had it been “fairly trivial” then, other competitors also would have done it.
 
Kakistocrat said:
That’s not entirely true; the second-place contestant in the 1981 Origins tournament also had a squadron of numerous agile little spacecraft, but didn’t have an “unhittable” ship that was analogous to Lenat’s Wasp-class, and resigned once Lenat explained what his plan would be in their battle.
Click to expand...
If I have understood correctly, Lenat fielded slow heavily armoured rocks at TL-12 (Eurisko, JTAS#10) in '81, and fast unarmoured ships at TL-13 in '82.

Power, hence agility and spinals, are much cheaper at TL-13.


Kakistocrat said:
“Fairly trivial”—in 1981? Had it been “fairly trivial” then, other competitors also would have done it.
Click to expand...
It's still far from trivial, especially running the battles intelligently. Just computing damage is trivial, but not forming the battleline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
CT Only: Eurisko and TCS
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
8K
nobby-w
N
M
Adventure 3: Trillion Credit Squadron - on Drivethru
Replies
1
Views
1K
Dragoner
Dragoner
D
Trillion Credit Squadron clarifications
Replies
6
Views
2K
Icosahedron
I
Garnfellow
Traveller in the New Yorker
Replies
5
Views
2K
Madarin Dude
M
D
Eurisko & Trillion Credit Squadron Tournaments
Replies
6
Views
3K
doomhunk
D
Back
Top