Sustainability of ST/ZT stacking

[level5]

I find ravendarksky's image offensive.

Blimey!

[level5]

I find ravendarksky's image offensive.

Have you looked at the 200 lines video? James said if you guys are doing mathematical analysis he'd love to hear what you think...although he then started saying that he made too many mistakes and maybe I shouldn't show it to you......(I already posted it on the site days ago - oops)

[Paul676]

if you're asking for advice on James's play, then I could give a bit - you should get him to download NullpoMino on nullpo.it.cx - that is probably the most up to date version of tetris we know of. If he's happy to do that, I can give further advice to help speed of play a lot

[Question_Mark]

Since you usually need to place down two T pieces for you  to be able to stack neatly that would mean that you have to use two T pieces in within a short time.
But I have a feeling the hold function can delay this  by some factor as you can continue to build and do T spins even though you are in a defecit of lines since you can hold the T piece so that you could get out a maximum of 6 other pieces before you have to place down a T piece.

So everytime you according to the math have to place down a T piece you actually can steal a few lines from the next bag, this does not solve anything but it does postpone the length for which it can be sustained.

Since you can get out a maximum of 6 pieces before you will be forced to put down a T piece (1 in hold from prev. bag and one from you current bag) this means that you can have a defecit of 2.4 lines and still be able to do the ST. However 6 is a maximum and not every piece might fit where you want it.
Also since you usually have to use two T pieces in the right side (for ZT stack) this is quite good anyway

Duno if my math was correct there but i think we have to take into account that we have hold and that that gives some extra breathing time.
here is a replay of me only using the first two T pieces in the beggining to build the main stack and wasn't forced to use two untill the 74th line. However I did not use not only S and L for the middle stack but also Z O and J so that might mess upp the math as I can smoth out the lack of pieces for the furthermost 4 colums by using some of the S and L pices there.
http://www.speedyshare.com/files/28362432/73lines_ST.rep

I ran the numbers and got the same result...your math seems valid to me. Factoring in Hold introduces the element of probability and that has made basically every hold-involving-calculation I've ever done a nightmare. I might try it, but with an AP Exam (in statistics, mind you) coming up in three days I don't really have time right now to attempt something like that.
Your replay is very good, but if you're trying to postpone the necessity of wasting a T by pure ST/ZT stacking, there's a much simpler way--just don't Tetris until you absolutely have to. This will keep the left side in balance with the center until everything gets too high--then send two line pieces down the far-right partition and that will lower the overall height as well as create a deficit of two cells/column in the far-left stack.
Basically, if you postpone dropping I's into the right substack as long as you can, then you should be able to sustain the ST/ZT easily--that is, until you have to start Tetrising constantly.

st stacking isnt possible without dumping at least a t piece into the stack

if you dont, you get tspin nothings

are you question_mark on tf?

Yes, that's basically the argument I present on page one, simplified and sans the math  I'm actually Negative_Zer0 on TF. I made that account about a year and four months ago, I think, so it's not that accurate anymore . I've been playing too much nullpo and not enough minerals TF.

I don't see wasting a T as such a bad sign if you can keep going.
I remember using ST stacking all the way up to level 15 or so in Survival Mode on TF, and then I had to switch because the pieces started to drop too fast to place them correctly, how much more sustainability would you need or is this a theoretical argument?

Wasting a T in multiplayer means that if others don't waste the T, you suddenly get a bunch of lines. That's why I was trying to optimize the method--if you send 5 lines (6 on TF) every bag, keeping up a constant flow of garbage (well, not exactly constant but you know what I mean), you're likely to emerge victorious against those who start out big but then have no idea what to do after their opener is done. Although if I figure out a general way of implementing Alex's TKI 3>ST I might be able to remove even that downside. The garbage flow would eventually be like stacking a four-wide, except you're sending garbage all the time rather than building up and letting loose a flood of garbage .
I actually wrote the analysis from a semitheoretical standpoint--I wanted to apply it but knew that alternating methods that much is extremely difficult to do on command. So it was like an idea for how to program a super-awesome bot to play Tetris, although I'm not doing that anytime soon (Heck, I don't have computer programming until the year after next!). But I know that someone who is good enough to LST stack is probably almost good enough to learn to alternate LST and ST at the right times to provide an indefinitely sustainable method which is perfectly efficient in sending garbage lines from back-to-back line clears (TSDs and Tetrises, I mean).

Blimey!

Are you British too?

Have you looked at the 200 lines video? James said if you guys are doing mathematical analysis he'd love to hear what you think...although he then started saying that he made too many mistakes and maybe I shouldn't show it to you......(I already posted it on the site days ago - oops)

I dunno about Alex, but I'm willing to spend some time on a math analysis. I'll look it up, but in the meantime could you ask James about what he wants me to analyze? Also, because of my current state of busy-ness I'm probably not going to be able to complete such an analysis until sometime next weekend or early the week after.

That's yet another essay from me, complete with a bunch of quotes! Blah.
Cheers,
~QM

[Alexsweden]

I ran the numbers and got the same result...your math seems valid to me. Factoring in Hold introduces the element of probability and that has made basically every hold-involving-calculation I've ever done a nightmare. I might try it, but with an AP Exam (in statistics, mind you) coming up in three days I don't really have time right now to attempt something like that.
Your replay is very good, but if you're trying to postpone the necessity of wasting a T by pure ST/ZT stacking, there's a much simpler way--just don't Tetris until you absolutely have to. This will keep the left side in balance with the center until everything gets too high--then send two line pieces down the far-right partition and that will lower the overall height as well as create a deficit of two cells/column in the far-left stack.
Basically, if you postpone dropping I's into the right substack as long as you can, then you should be able to sustain the ST/ZT easily--that is, until you have to start Tetrising constantly.

Will test not doing as much tetrises to see how much longer I can stack - will also try to get more ST done perfectly in generall next week (= after finals) Will aslo learn JZT stacking.

[myndzi]

Interesting work, Question_Mark. Are you still planning to write up your findings on the perfect clear thing?

Vvv Excellent, I was looking forward to it

[Question_Mark]

^^^ You've only got a week or two left to wait. Hang in there, buddy!

Interesting work, Question_Mark. Are you still planning to write up your findings on the perfect clear thing?

That I will...I more or less forgot about it...
Problem is that a lot of stuff is happening in my life right now (including an AP Stats exam) so I won't be able to spend much time on HD or on my computer in general apart from finishing up ridiculous homework assignments, projects, reviewing, studying, etc.
I will get to it. I find that my duty as a Tetris mathematician will not be fulfilled unless I complete more analyses like this, if only for the benefit of anybody who asks the questions to which I give answers.
~QM

[XaeL]

I don't think you understand. No math is necessary to understand that ST stacking is sustainable if you periodically dump a T in your stack to build it up.

Math is required to prove this however.

And yes, any pattern where (lines cleared is > stack built) is sustainable forever as long as you dump [critical piece] on stack to compensate, however you are wasting [critical piece]s

[Question_Mark]

Math is required to prove this however.

And yes, any pattern where (lines cleared is > stack built) is sustainable forever as long as you dump [critical piece] on stack to compensate, however you are wasting [critical piece]s

Well, technically, yes, math is required to prove this. But no numbers are necessarily needed; by dumping the [critical piece] on the stack (as well as the six other pieces in the bag, while you're at it) you increase the height of the stack without clearing lines. This will slightly offset the lines cleared > lines stacked imbalance: now lines cleared-(wasted bag) > lines stacked+(wasted bag). Repeating the process n times until the inequality is reversed, i.e., lines cleared-n(wasted bag) < lines stacked+n(wasted bag), will allow the process to be sustainable. Q.E.D.

[Shuey]

I think this thread needs to be revived, lol.  I'm sure that the previous minds involved could certainly discuss and further expand on the thought process and the method(s).