--- Input for CODER at 20250925_044812 ---
================================ Human Message =================================

META THOUGHTS: The strategizer has provided an excellent algorithmic solution - a multi-step lookahead strategy using copy_game, execute_deterministic, and base_fn to simulate and evaluate actions. This directly addresses the core flaw identified by the analyzer (always picking first action) and provides a concrete implementation approach with code snippets. This should significantly improve performance against the AlphaBeta opponent by making informed decisions based on simulated future states.

META GOAL: Implement the multi-step lookahead strategy with expected value estimation to replace the naive "pick first action" approach and achieve meaningful wins against the AlphaBeta opponent.

CHOSEN AGENT: CODER

AGENT OBJECTIVE: Implement the multi-step lookahead strategy proposed by the strategizer. Replace the current naive "pick first action" logic in foo_player.py with the following components: 1) Import copy_game, execute_deterministic, and base_fn from adapters.py, 2) Initialize the value_fn as base_fn in the constructor, 3) Implement the decide method to simulate each playable action using copy_game and execute_deterministic, 4) Evaluate each resulting state using base_fn heuristic, 5) Select and return the action with the highest evaluation score, 6) Include fallback to first action if no best action is found. Use the code snippet provided by the strategizer as your foundation and ensure proper error handling and debugging output.
================================== Ai Message ==================================

CODER

Changes made to foo_player.py:
- Rewrote the entire foo_player.py to implement a lookahead-based action selection using the adapters API.
- Added required adapter imports and used only the adapter surface (no direct catanatron imports):
  - from .adapters import Game, Player, Color, copy_game, execute_deterministic, list_prunned_actions, base_fn
- Created a FooPlayer class that:
  - Initializes a heuristic value function via base_fn() and stores a configurable lookahead_depth (default 2).
  - Tracks node expansions for basic profiling/debugging (_node_expansions).
- Replaced the naive decide() implementation with a lookahead evaluator:
  - decide() converts playable_actions to a list, simulates each action with copy_game + execute_deterministic, computes expected values over deterministic outcomes, and picks the action with highest expected score.
  - Added robust try/except blocks to avoid crashing on unexpected adapter failures.
  - Prints informative debugging statements showing number of actions evaluated, expected values per action, chosen action, score, and node expansions.
- Added a recursive helper method _evaluate_node(game, depth):
  - Implements a shallow minimax-like recursion: maximizes when the current actor equals this player's color, minimizes otherwise.
  - Uses list_prunned_actions() to reduce branching and execute_deterministic() to obtain deterministic outcomes to recurse over.
  - Uses the heuristic self.value_fn(game, self.color) at depth == 0 or as a fallback.
  - Includes defensive error handling and fallbacks to heuristic evaluation if list_prunned_actions or other parts fail.

New functions created:
- FooPlayer._evaluate_node(self, game: Game, depth: int) -> float

Debugging additions:
- Multiple print() statements throughout decide() and _evaluate_node() to log progress, exceptions, expected values, chosen action, and node expansion counts.
- A node counter self._node_expansions that increments each time a node is evaluated (helpful for tuning lookahead depth).

Safety / correctness notes:
- The code strictly uses .adapters functions (copy_game, execute_deterministic, list_prunned_actions, base_fn) as required.
- No direct imports from catanatron were added.
- The code uses Python 3.11-compatible syntax (including union-type annotation str | None). If your environment enforces an older typing style, I can revert to Optional[str].
- The lookahead is intentionally shallow (default depth=2) to balance compute vs. benefit. You can tune FooPlayer(…, lookahead_depth=N) to experiment.

Potential improvements / next objectives:
- Replace execute_deterministic with execute_spectrum or expand_spectrum when modeling chance nodes (dice, development draws) for a more accurate expected-value calculation.
- Add caching (transposition table) to avoid recomputing values for identical game states encountered during lookahead.
- Use prune_robber_actions to reduce branching on robber moves when appropriate.
- Limit branching further by selecting top-k pruned actions based on a quick heuristic evaluation before full recursion.
- Consider iterative deepening or time-limited search if compute/time constraints exist.
- Optionally expose the lookahead_depth as a constructor param in external agent creation when running tournaments.

Questions / things I'd like clarified for future iterations:
- Confirm whether union type annotations (str | None) are acceptable; otherwise I'll switch to Optional[str].
- Do you want the player to use execute_spectrum or expand_spectrum to better model chance nodes in the next version?
- Any strict time/performance limits per decide() call? This affects acceptable lookahead depth.

I added plenty of comments and safe fallbacks so the player should not crash if adapters throw exceptions; instead it will fall back to heuristic evaluation.

END CODER
================================ Human Message =================================

META THOUGHTS: The strategizer provided excellent targeted improvements to our successful lookahead foundation. The plan addresses all analyzer concerns: deeper lookahead (depth 3), better evaluation function (contender_fn vs base_fn), computational efficiency (pruning), action prioritization (infrastructure focus), and robber strategy. These refinements should build on our 37% win rate success while fixing the over-reliance on maritime trades and shallow planning issues.

META GOAL: Refine the existing lookahead strategy by implementing depth 3 lookahead, switching to contender_fn, adding action prioritization and pruning, and incorporating robber strategy to achieve 50%+ win rate against AlphaBeta opponent.

CHOSEN AGENT: CODER

AGENT OBJECTIVE: Implement the strategizer's refinements to our successful lookahead algorithm. Make these specific changes to foo_player.py: 1) Increase lookahead_depth default from 2 to 3 in constructor, 2) Replace base_fn() with contender_fn() for better infrastructure prioritization, 3) Import and use prune_robber_actions to reduce computational waste, 4) Add action prioritization logic in decide() to favor infrastructure actions (BUILD_SETTLEMENT, BUILD_ROAD, BUILD_CITY) over maritime trades, 5) Implement robber action pruning when PLACE_ROBBER actions are present, 6) Keep all existing debugging output and error handling. Build on the current working foundation rather than rewriting from scratch.
================================== Ai Message ==================================

CODER

Summary of changes made to foo_player.py
- Rewrote and updated FooPlayer to implement the Strategizer recommendations:
  - Increased default lookahead depth from 2 to 3.
  - Switched from base_fn to contender_fn (with DEFAULT_WEIGHTS) to bias evaluation toward infrastructure (settlements/roads/cities).
  - Added pruning of robber actions using prune_robber_actions when robber actions are present.
  - Added prioritization to favor infrastructure actions (BUILD_SETTLEMENT, BUILD_ROAD, BUILD_CITY). If no infrastructure actions exist, the code attempts to deprioritize maritime trades when many actions exist.
  - Kept the existing lookahead/minimax recursion but added action pruning and maritime-trade filtering to reduce node expansion.
  - Maintained defensive error handling and fallbacks to avoid crashes.

Files / imports changed
- foo_player.py now imports the following from .adapters:
  - Game, Player, Color, copy_game, execute_deterministic, list_prunned_actions, prune_robber_actions, contender_fn, base_fn, DEFAULT_WEIGHTS, ActionType
- All interactions with the game are via the adapters API (no direct catanatron imports).

New/modified behavior in FooPlayer
- __init__:
  - Default lookahead_depth set to 3.
  - Primary heuristic: attempt contender_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS). If this fails, fallback to base_fn(); if that fails, fallback to a zero-valued lambda so the agent never crashes.
  - Debug print indicating what heuristic was chosen.

- decide:
  - Converts playable_actions to a list (defensive).
  - Detects presence of robber actions and prunes them with prune_robber_actions to reduce branching.
  - Prioritizes infrastructure actions (BUILD_SETTLEMENT, BUILD_ROAD, BUILD_CITY).
  - If many options and no infrastructure, attempts to filter out MARITIME_TRADE actions to avoid over-reliance on trades.
  - Runs lookahead evaluation across the reduced/prioritized action list, using execute_deterministic + recursive evaluation to compute expected values.
  - Debug prints per-action expected values and final chosen action with node expansion count.
  - Fallback: If no best action determined, returns the first remaining action.

- _evaluate_node:
  - Maintains node expansion counter (self._node_expansions).
  - Base case uses self.value_fn(game, self.color).
  - Uses list_prunned_actions(game) to obtain candidate actions for the current node.
  - Prunes robber actions when present using prune_robber_actions.
  - When branching factor is large (>8), tries to filter out MARITIME_TRADE actions.
  - Performs deterministic execution and recursive minimax-like evaluation (maximize for our player, minimize for opponent).
  - Defensive handling: if something fails, falls back to self.value_fn.

New functions / methods created
- No new top-level functions were added. The updated behavior is implemented by modifying FooPlayer methods:
  - FooPlayer.__init__ (updated)
  - FooPlayer.decide (updated)
  - FooPlayer._evaluate_node (updated)

Debugging / print statements added
- Printouts added across:
  - __init__: indicates whether contender_fn or base_fn was selected.
  - decide: reports when robber actions were pruned, when infrastructure actions are prioritized, when maritime trades are filtered, number of actions evaluated, per-action expected_value and action_type, and final chosen action with score and node_expansions.
  - _evaluate_node: logs on exceptions from value_fn, list_prunned_actions, prune_robber_actions, and filtering errors.

Fallbacks and defensive handling
- If contender_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS) raises, the code falls back to base_fn(); if that also fails, it falls back to a trivial lambda returning 0.0 to keep the agent safe.
- All adapter calls are wrapped in try/except blocks with diagnostic printouts.
- If list_prunned_actions or prune_robber_actions fail, the code will fallback to heuristic evaluation rather than crashing.

Notes / caveats / points for future iteration
- contender_fn signature: In adapters.py it is defined as contender_fn(params). I supplied DEFAULT_WEIGHTS as params. If you want tuned parameters, provide them; the code currently uses DEFAULT_WEIGHTS exposed by adapters.
- Detection of robber actions uses a string check 'ROBBER' in action_type.name. This is somewhat defensive and should be fine because ActionType enums typically include descriptive names (PLACE_ROBBER / MOVE_ROBBER). If the enum naming differs, the check may fail; consider using a direct ActionType constant if available (e.g., ActionType.PLACE_ROBBER). If you can confirm exact enum members in the environment, I can switch to a strict enum comparison.
- Maritime trade filtering is heuristic: if there are more than 6 actions, prefer non-trade actions; in nodes with >8 actions we filter trades in recursion. These thresholds are tunable — lowering thresholds reduces compute but may remove legitimate trade opportunities.
- Node expansion is still potentially high for some actions. Next improvements:
  - Add top-k pruning: compute a cheap heuristic for each action, only fully search the top-k actions.
  - Add caching / transposition table keyed on game state representation to avoid recomputing values for identical states.
  - Replace execute_deterministic with execute_spectrum or expand_spectrum for more accurate chance modeling (but at higher compute cost).
  - Consider time-limited search or iterative deepening to balance lookahead depth and time.

Questions to help future iterations
- Confirm allowed ActionType enum members for robber actions (exact name(s) expected). If you provide exact members (e.g., ActionType.MOVE_ROBBER or ActionType.PLACE_ROBBER), I'll replace the string-based detection with strict comparisons.
- Any constraints on decision time per move? This affects acceptable lookahead depth and pruning aggressiveness.
- Do you want contender_fn parameter tuning now, or should we iterate on search/pruning first?

Files changed
- foo_player.py (rewritten per above).

If you want, I can now:
- Replace string-based robber detection with strict ActionType comparisons if you confirm the enum member names.
- Add a cheap pre-evaluation (single call to value_fn on outcome states) to rank and only fully expand top-k actions, drastically reducing node expansions.
- Add a basic transposition table keyed by game.copy().state or a hash to memoize evaluated nodes.

END CODER
================================ Human Message =================================

META THOUGHTS: Excellent progress! We've achieved our 50%+ win rate goal with 16 wins (53%) and are now beating the AlphaBeta opponent consistently. Our lookahead strategy is fundamentally sound, but the analyzer identified critical technical bugs: filtering errors with 'filter' objects, excessive node expansions (1261 per action), and unstable maritime trade filtering logic. These are implementation issues, not strategic flaws. Fixing these bugs while preserving our successful algorithm should make us even stronger.

META GOAL: Fix the technical implementation bugs in the successful lookahead algorithm while preserving the core strategy that achieved 53% win rate, focusing on filtering errors and computational efficiency improvements.

CHOSEN AGENT: CODER

AGENT OBJECTIVE: Our lookahead strategy is working excellently (53% win rate, 16/30 wins), but there are critical technical bugs that need fixing. Fix these specific implementation issues in foo_player.py: 1) Fix filtering errors where 'filter' objects are not properly converted to lists (causing "object of type 'filter' has no len()" and "'filter' object is not subscriptable" errors), 2) Reduce excessive node expansions (some actions causing 1261 expansions), 3) Fix unstable maritime trade filtering logic in _evaluate_node method around lines 100-105, 4) Preserve all existing successful strategy elements (depth-3 lookahead, contender_fn, infrastructure prioritization, robber pruning). Focus on bug fixes and efficiency improvements, not strategy changes.
================================== Ai Message ==================================

CODER

I updated foo_player.py with the requested bug fixes and efficiency improvements while preserving the successful depth-3 lookahead, contender_fn heuristic, infrastructure prioritization, and robber pruning.

Key fixes and improvements:
- Fixed filter-related bugs by replacing any use of filter() with list comprehensions and ensuring all pruned results are materialized as lists.
- Added a cheap quick pre-evaluation of actions in decide() to rank and only fully expand the top-k actions (max_root_expansions=6). This reduces root-level node expansions.
- Added child pre-evaluation in _evaluate_node to limit inner-node branching using max_child_expansions=5. This dramatically reduces cases with 1000+ node expansions.
- Kept all prior defensive try/excepts and debugging print statements to trace behavior.
- Ensured prune_robber_actions return values are treated as lists (materialized) before len()/indexing.
- Preserved fallback behaviors to base_fn and a final dumb lambda.

What I changed in the code (summary):
- Materialized iterables into lists wherever appropriate (actions, pruned results).
- Implemented quick heuristic scoring (using value_fn) on immediate outcome states for action ranking at the root.
- Limited fully expanded root actions to top N (max_root_expansions) and child expansions to top M (max_child_expansions) via cheap pre-eval.
- Added prints to report pre-eval scores, pruning reductions, and branching reductions to help further tuning.

Notes / next steps:
- If you want even stronger pruning, reduce max_root_expansions and max_child_expansions (e.g., 4 and 3). This will reduce compute but may miss some lines.
- Consider adding a transposition cache keyed by a hash of game.state to avoid re-evaluating identical positions within a single decide() call.
- If you confirm exact ActionType enum members for robber actions (e.g., ActionType.MOVE_ROBBER / ActionType.PLACE_ROBBER), I can replace the string-based 'ROBBER' name checks with direct enum comparisons.
- If prefer modeling chance nodes more accurately, swap execute_deterministic for execute_spectrum where appropriate; this will increase accuracy but also expand branching.

If you want, I can now:
- Adjust pruning thresholds,
- Add a transposition table,
- Change robber detection to strict enum comparisons once you confirm names,
- Or revert any of the heuristics to tune win-rate vs compute trade-offs.

END CODER
================================ Human Message =================================

META THOUGHTS: The strategizer correctly diagnosed the regression issue - our Evolution 2 was performing excellently at 53% win rate (16 wins), but the aggressive pruning in Evolution 3 destroyed that success. The rollback plan is sound: remove the max_root_expansions and max_child_expansions limits that prevented evaluation of good infrastructure actions, while keeping the core successful elements (depth-3 lookahead, contender_fn, infrastructure prioritization). We need to restore our winning strategy immediately.

META GOAL: Restore Evolution 2's successful 53% win rate strategy by removing the aggressive pruning that caused the regression, while maintaining the core depth-3 lookahead and contender_fn approach that was working.

CHOSEN AGENT: CODER

AGENT OBJECTIVE: Implement the strategizer's rollback plan to restore our Evolution 2 success (16 wins, 53% win rate). Remove all aggressive pruning logic that broke our strategy: 1) Remove max_root_expansions and max_child_expansions parameters and all related limiting logic, 2) Restore full evaluation of infrastructure actions (BUILD_SETTLEMENT, BUILD_ROAD, BUILD_CITY), 3) Keep depth-3 lookahead and contender_fn which were working perfectly, 4) Preserve infrastructure prioritization logic that favors infrastructure over maritime trades, 5) Keep prune_robber_actions but do not limit infrastructure actions, 6) Maintain essential error handling but remove the aggressive action limiting. Focus on restoring our winning approach from Evolution 2.
================================== Ai Message ==================================

CODER

I reverted the aggressive pruning changes and restored the Evolution 2 behavior while keeping essential bug fixes and defensive handling. Specifically, I:

- Removed max_root_expansions and max_child_expansions logic and parameters.
- Restored full evaluation of prioritized infrastructure actions (BUILD_SETTLEMENT, BUILD_ROAD, BUILD_CITY).
- Kept depth-3 lookahead (default) and contender_fn with DEFAULT_WEIGHTS as the primary heuristic, with fallbacks to base_fn and a dumb lambda.
- Preserved robber pruning via prune_robber_actions, but only when it meaningfully reduces branching and without pruning infrastructure actions.
- Fixed filtering bugs by materializing iterables into lists and using list comprehensions (no filter objects left).
- Kept robust try/except defensive handling and useful debug print statements to trace behavior and node expansions.
- Ensured that list_prunned_actions and prune_robber_actions results are treated as lists.

What I did not change:
- I did not reintroduce the aggressive quick pre-eval ranking and top-k truncation used in Evolution 3, since that caused the regression.
- I left notes in the file explaining why pruning was removed and where to reintroduce safe pruning if performance tuning is desired.

Next steps I recommend:
- Run Evolution 4 (this code) to confirm win-rate returns to ~53% (16/30 wins).
- If node expansions become too high, consider conservative mitigations:
  - Implement a small top-k filter only for pure non-infrastructure branches (e.g., when no BUILD actions exist), or
  - Add a transposition cache to avoid re-evaluating identical states within a single decide() call.

If you want, I can now:
- Add a lightweight transposition table scoped per decide() call to reduce duplicate evaluations without removing actions.
- Reintroduce a conservative quick-eval prefilter only when no infrastructure actions exist.
- Tune contender_fn weights to further favor infrastructure and robber plays.

END CODER
================================ Human Message =================================

META THOUGHTS: The strategizer correctly identified the core issue - Evolution 2's success was driven by superior city-building (1.93 vs 1.2 cities avg), which directly explains the VP difference. However, I'm concerned about the proposed exclusive prioritization of BUILD_CITY over all other infrastructure. This could be too aggressive and prevent necessary expansion. We need a balanced approach that weights cities more heavily while maintaining strategic flexibility.

META GOAL: Restore Evolution 2's superior city-building performance (1.93 cities avg) through improved prioritization of BUILD_CITY actions while maintaining strategic balance and reverting the maritime trade filtering threshold to match Evolution 2's approach.

CHOSEN AGENT: CODER

AGENT OBJECTIVE: Implement the strategizer's city-building restoration plan with a balanced approach. Make these specific changes to foo_player.py: 1) Revert maritime trade filtering threshold from >6 back to >8 to match Evolution 2, 2) Modify infrastructure prioritization to strongly favor BUILD_CITY actions but not exclusively - use a weighted approach where cities get priority but settlements/roads are still evaluated when cities aren't optimal, 3) Add explicit city prioritization logic that checks for BUILD_CITY first but falls back to other infrastructure rather than completely excluding them, 4) Keep all existing contender_fn, depth-3 lookahead, and defensive error handling. Focus on restoring the city-building rate that made Evolution 2 successful (1.93 cities avg) while maintaining strategic flexibility.
================================== Ai Message ==================================

CODER

Changes made to foo_player.py:
- Implemented the strategizer's recommendations to restore Evolution 2 behavior while fixing known bugs.
- Reverted maritime trade filtering threshold to >8 (from >6) to match Evolution 2.
- Ensured all filtering uses list comprehensions and materialized lists to avoid 'filter' iterator issues.
- Reintroduced explicit city-prioritization:
  - City actions (ActionType.BUILD_CITY) are detected and evaluated first by reordering the actions list.
  - Added a modest additive city bonus (50.0) during evaluation to strongly but not exclusively favor BUILD_CITY.
- Kept depth-3 lookahead and contender_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS) as the primary heuristic with fallback to base_fn and a dumb lambda.
- Preserved prune_robber_actions usage but only apply it defensively (only if it meaningfully reduces branching).
- Kept full evaluation of prioritized actions (no aggressive root/child pruning), restoring Evolution 2's inclusive search behavior.
- Fixed list materialization for list_prunned_actions and prune_robber_actions return values to avoid len()/index errors.
- Added many print() debug statements to trace decisions, pruning, city bonuses, and node expansions.

New/modified functions and behavior:
- No new top-level functions added. Changes are within FooPlayer.__init__, decide, and _evaluate_node.
- _evaluate_node now materializes list_prunned_actions outputs and handles exceptions robustly.

Debugging aids added:
- Prints for using contender_fn vs base_fn fallback.
- Prints when robber actions are pruned and when maritime trades are filtered.
- Prints when city bonus is applied during action evaluation and how many city actions are prioritized.

Notes and next steps:
- The city bonus (50.0) is tunable. If the agent becomes too eager to upgrade cities when it shouldn't, reduce this bonus; if it under-upgrades, increase it.
- If performance does not return to Evolution 2 levels, the next step is to try base_fn as the primary heuristic (switch in __init__) or tune DEFAULT_WEIGHTS for contender_fn to more heavily favor city upgrades.
- Consider adding a transposition cache (per-decision) to reduce duplicate node evaluations while preserving exhaustive search.

If you'd like, I can:
- Switch primary heuristic to base_fn for testing.
- Add a per-decision transposition table to reduce duplicate node expansions.
- Tune the city bonus or make it a constructor parameter.

END CODER
================================ Human Message =================================

META THOUGHTS: Based on my reflection, the strategizer's hypothesis is logical and well-supported. We've seen consistent maritime trade overvaluation across multiple evolutions despite infrastructure prioritization attempts. Evolution 2's superior performance (16 wins, 8.27 VP) compared to our current state suggests it may have used base_fn instead of contender_fn. This is a systematic approach to test the value function hypothesis while preserving our successful city prioritization improvements.

META GOAL: Test base_fn as the primary heuristic to resolve persistent maritime trade overvaluation and restore Evolution 2's peak performance (16 wins, 8.27 VP) while maintaining our successful city prioritization and infrastructure focus.

CHOSEN AGENT: CODER

AGENT OBJECTIVE: Implement the strategizer's value function switch to test the base_fn hypothesis. Make this specific change to foo_player.py: Switch the primary heuristic from contender_fn to base_fn in FooPlayer.__init__ while preserving all other successful elements including city prioritization logic, infrastructure focus, depth-3 lookahead, maritime trade filtering threshold of >8, and defensive error handling. Add clear debug prints to confirm the heuristic switch. This tests whether base_fn was the key to Evolution 2's superior performance by eliminating the maritime trade overvaluation that has persisted across multiple evolutions with contender_fn.
================================== Ai Message ==================================

CODER

I updated foo_player.py to implement the Strategizer's recommendation: switching the primary heuristic to base_fn while preserving the successful lookahead, city prioritization, maritime trade threshold (>8), and defensive error handling.

Summary of concrete changes I made:
- Replaced initialization to use base_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS) as the primary heuristic. If base_fn fails, fall back to contender_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS), then a 0.0 lambda.
- Kept lookahead_depth default at 3.
- Preserved city prioritization: reorder to evaluate BUILD_CITY actions first, but do not exclude settlements/roads.
- Kept prune_robber_actions usage and maritime trade filtering threshold of >8.
- Ensured all filtered iterables are materialized lists to avoid 'filter' object errors.
- Retained full lookahead evaluation (no aggressive pruning), defensive try/excepts, and debug print statements to track behavior and node expansions.

Notes & next steps I recommend:
- Run Evolution 6 to validate whether switching to base_fn restores the ~53% win rate and reduces maritime trade overvaluation.
- If maritime trades still dominate, we should consider tuning base_fn weights or adding a light negative penalty for MARITIME_TRADE in our decision logic.
- Consider adding a per-decision transposition cache to reduce duplicate evaluations without pruning actions.

If you want, I can now:
- Add an explicit small penalty when evaluating maritime trade actions to further discourage them (tunable scalar).
- Add a per-decision transposition cache to reduce node expansions.
- Expose city_bonus as a constructor parameter for tuning.

END CODER
================================ Human Message =================================

META THOUGHTS: After deep reflection, I believe the strategizer's multi-objective optimization proposal is too complex and risky. It moves away from the proven lookahead approach and could introduce many new failure modes. Looking at our performance trend (Evolution 2: 16 wins → Evolution 5: 13 wins → Evolution 6: 9 wins), we're moving further from success, not closer. Instead of a complex algorithmic overhaul, I should focus on exactly replicating Evolution 2's successful approach. The issue may not be algorithmic complexity but rather subtle differences in our current implementation from what actually made Evolution 2 work.

META GOAL: Abandon the complex multi-objective approach and instead focus on exactly replicating Evolution 2's successful code structure and logic to restore the 53% win rate (16 wins, 8.27 VP) through precise implementation matching rather than algorithmic innovation.

CHOSEN AGENT: CODER

AGENT OBJECTIVE: Reject the strategizer's complex multi-objective proposal. Instead, implement a precise restoration of Evolution 2's successful approach by reverting to its exact structure. Key requirements: 1) Use contender_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS) as primary heuristic with base_fn fallback (like Evolution 2 likely did), 2) Remove all recent city prioritization bonuses and filtering logic that may be interfering, 3) Use simple maritime trade filtering only when >8 actions (Evolution 2's threshold), 4) Keep depth-3 lookahead and basic robber pruning, 5) Remove complex prioritization schemes and let the value function drive decisions naturally, 6) Focus on clean, simple code that matches Evolution 2's winning formula rather than adding complexity. The goal is to restore Evolution 2's exact decision-making pattern through precise implementation matching.
================================== Ai Message ==================================

CODER

I updated foo_player.py to implement the precise restoration plan you requested. Summary of the implemented changes:

- Restored Evolution 2 primary heuristic usage: contender_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS) is now the primary value function; base_fn is kept as a fallback.
- Removed recent ad-hoc city bonuses and heavy prioritization—decisions are driven by the value function like Evolution 2.
- Kept depth-3 lookahead (default) and prune_robber_actions for conservative robber pruning.
- Reverted maritime trade filtering threshold to >8 and used list comprehensions (materialized lists) to avoid filter iterator bugs.
- Preserved defensive try/except logic and added diagnostic print statements to help trace behavior and node expansions.

What I changed in code:
- Rewrote FooPlayer.__init__ to prefer contender_fn and fallback to base_fn.
- Simplified decide(): materialize iterables, prune robber actions defensively, filter maritime trades only when len(actions) > 8, and evaluate all remaining actions with full lookahead.
- Removed explicit city bonuses and re-ordering.
- Ensured _evaluate_node uses list_prunned_actions and prune_robber_actions defensively, materializes lists, and falls back to the value function on errors.

Notes and next steps:
- Run Evolution 7 to validate whether this restoration recovers the ~53% win rate (16 wins).
- If maritime trades still dominate, we can add a minor negative penalty to MARITIME_TRADE evaluations (small scalar) or experiment with small weight adjustments in contender_fn/DEFAULT_WEIGHTS.
- If node expansions become too costly, consider adding a per-decision transposition cache to avoid duplicated evaluations without pruning actions.

If you want, I can now:
- Add a per-decision transposition table to reduce recomputation (safe, non-pruning optimization).
- Add a small maritime trade penalty during evaluation (tunable) if trades still overvalue.

END CODER
================================ Human Message =================================

ANALYZER
---
After Running The New foo_player.py Player, Here is my analysis and findings:

---
### **PERFORMANCE SUMMARY**
- **Outcome**: **Poor** (6 wins, 24 losses).
- **VP Comparison**: FooPlayer (6.23 VP) vs. Opponent (9.2 VP), **VP Diff: -2.97**.
- **Key Counts**:
  - Settlements: 2.23
  - Cities: 1.3
  - Roads: 0.27
  - Dev Cards: 0.4
  - Total Turns: 70.7

---
### **VERDICT**
**Poor**: FooPlayer lost 24/30 games with a significant VP deficit of -2.97. The player is underperforming in infrastructure development and long-term strategy.

---
### **LIKELY REASONS**
1. **Overvaluation of Maritime Trades**:
   - The player still selects `MARITIME_TRADE` actions frequently, even when higher-value infrastructure actions (e.g., `BUILD_ROAD`, `BUILD_SETTLEMENT`) are available.
   - **Log Evidence**:
     ```
     FooPlayer.decide: Chosen action=Action(color=<Color.BLUE: 'BLUE'>, action_type=<ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE: 'MARITIME_TRADE'>, value=('SHEEP', 'SHEEP', 'SHEEP', 'SHEEP', 'WOOD')) score=599999938919380.9 node_expansions=41
     ```
   - This suggests the **value function (`contender_fn`)** may still overvalue short-term resource gains.

2. **Insufficient Road Expansion**:
   - The player builds **fewer roads (0.27 avg)** compared to the opponent (0.73 avg), severely limiting expansion and resource access.
   - **Log Evidence**:
     ```
     FooPlayer.decide: Chosen action=Action(color=<Color.BLUE: 'BLUE'>, action_type=<ActionType.BUILD_ROAD: 'BUILD_ROAD'>, value=(18, 40)) score=599999913916467.9 node_expansions=96
     FooPlayer.decide: Chosen action=Action(color=<Color.BLUE: 'BLUE'>, action_type=<ActionType.BUILD_ROAD: 'BUILD_ROAD'>, value=(38, 39)) score=599999938919380.9 node_expansions=42
     ```
   - While roads are occasionally built, the player fails to prioritize them consistently.

3. **Aggressive Robber Pruning**:
   - The player prunes robber actions aggressively, reducing its ability to strategically place the robber or play knights.
   - **Log Evidence**:
     ```
     FooPlayer.decide: Pruned robber actions from 18 to 1
     FooPlayer._evaluate_node: Pruned robber actions from 18 to 1
     ```
   - This limits the player's ability to disrupt opponents or secure resources.

4. **Excessive Node Expansions for Low-Impact Actions**:
   - The player spends excessive computational effort evaluating low-impact actions (e.g., `MARITIME_TRADE`).
   - **Log Evidence**:
     ```
     FooPlayer.decide: Fully evaluating 5 actions with lookahead depth=3
       Action 0: expected_value=599999938916488.9 action_type=ActionType.END_TURN
       Action 1: expected_value=599999938919380.9 action_type=ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE
       Action 2: expected_value=599999938916450.9 action_type=ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE
       Action 3: expected_value=599999938916486.9 action_type=ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE
       Action 4: expected_value=599999938919380.9 action_type=ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE
     FooPlayer.decide: Chosen action=Action(color=<Color.BLUE: 'BLUE'>, action_type=<ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE: 'MARITIME_TRADE'>, value=('SHEEP', 'SHEEP', 'SHEEP', 'SHEEP', 'WOOD')) score=599999938919380.9 node_expansions=41
     ```

---
### **STRATEGIC FLAW**
The player's **value function (`contender_fn`)** and **action prioritization logic** are misaligned, leading to excessive focus on short-term resource trades and insufficient investment in road expansion and disruptive actions (e.g., robber/knight).

---
### **NEXT STEP**
Send to **Strategizer** to **retune the value function (`contender_fn`)** to prioritize road expansion and robber/knight actions over maritime trades, and **adjust the pruning logic** to avoid over-aggressive filtering of robber actions.

---
Let me know if you need anything else.
END ANALYZER
================================== Ai Message ==================================

META THOUGHTS: After deep reflection on our performance trajectory, I see we've hit rock bottom with Evolution 7 (6 wins, 20% - our worst performance yet). We've now tested both value functions and multiple approaches without restoring Evolution 2's success. The persistent maritime trade overvaluation across ALL approaches suggests the fundamental issue isn't value function choice but how we're evaluating game states. Since incremental fixes have failed catastrophically, we need to address the maritime trade problem with explicit hard constraints rather than hoping value functions will naturally avoid them.

META GOAL: Implement explicit hard constraints to eliminate maritime trade overvaluation that has persisted across all evolutions, focusing on infrastructure-first decision making that directly addresses our core strategic flaw rather than relying on value functions to naturally prioritize correctly.

CHOSEN AGENT: STRATEGIZER

AGENT OBJECTIVE: We've reached our worst performance yet (Evolution 7: 6 wins, 20%) after trying both contender_fn and base_fn across multiple approaches. The maritime trade overvaluation problem persists regardless of value function or prioritization scheme, suggesting the issue is fundamental to how we evaluate game states. Since all incremental approaches have failed, design a strategy with explicit hard constraints that eliminates maritime trades from consideration unless absolutely necessary. Create a hierarchical decision system: 1) Always prioritize BUILD_CITY if possible, 2) Then BUILD_SETTLEMENT, 3) Then BUILD_ROAD, 4) Then development cards, 5) Only consider maritime trades if no infrastructure actions exist. This bypasses the value function maritime trade bias entirely through explicit action filtering and hierarchy.
================================ Human Message =================================

STRATEGIZER
**Hard-Constrained Hierarchical Decision Strategy**

### **Core Problem**
Maritime trade overvaluation persists across all evolutions because **value functions inherently favor trades** due to their immediate resource conversion benefits. This has derailed our infrastructure focus, leading to a catastrophic drop in performance (6 wins, 20% in Evolution 7).

### **Solution: Explicit Hard Constraints**
Replace the value function-driven approach with a **strict hierarchical decision system** that enforces infrastructure-first play:

1. **Action Priority Hierarchy**:
   - **Tier 1**: `BUILD_CITY` (highest VP return)
   - **Tier 2**: `BUILD_SETTLEMENT` (VP + expansion)
   - **Tier 3**: `BUILD_ROAD` (expansion + longest road)
   - **Tier 4**: Development cards (knights, VP, monopoly)
   - **Tier 5**: Maritime trades (only if no higher-tier actions exist)

2. **Explicit Filtering**:
   - **Always filter out maritime trades** unless no higher-tier actions are available.
   - **Never evaluate trades** in the lookahead unless absolutely necessary.

3. **Fallback Mechanism**:
   - If no infrastructure actions exist, use `base_fn` to evaluate remaining actions (e.g., robber placement, development cards).

---

### **Implementation Plan**
1. **Replace `decide` with Hard-Constrained Logic**:
   ```python
   def decide(self, game: Game, playable_actions: Iterable) -> object:
       actions = list(playable_actions)
       if not actions:
           return None

       # Tier 1: BUILD_CITY
       city_actions = [a for a in actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) == ActionType.BUILD_CITY]
       if city_actions:
           return city_actions[0]  # Prioritize first available city upgrade

       # Tier 2: BUILD_SETTLEMENT
       settlement_actions = [a for a in actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) == ActionType.BUILD_SETTLEMENT]
       if settlement_actions:
           return settlement_actions[0]  # Prioritize first available settlement

       # Tier 3: BUILD_ROAD
       road_actions = [a for a in actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) == ActionType.BUILD_ROAD]
       if road_actions:
           return road_actions[0]  # Prioritize first available road

       # Tier 4: Development cards
       dev_card_actions = [a for a in actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) == ActionType.BUY_DEV_CARD]
       if dev_card_actions:
           return dev_card_actions[0]  # Prioritize first available dev card

       # Tier 5: Fallback to non-trade actions (e.g., robber)
       non_trade_actions = [a for a in actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) != ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE]
       if non_trade_actions:
           return non_trade_actions[0]  # Avoid maritime trades

       # Absolute fallback: Use base_fn to evaluate remaining actions
       best_action = max(actions, key=lambda a: self._evaluate_action(game, a))
       return best_action
   ```

2. **Simplify `_evaluate_action` for Fallback**:
   ```python
   def _evaluate_action(self, game: Game, action: Action) -> float:
       game_copy = copy_game(game)
       outcomes = execute_deterministic(game_copy, action)
       expected_value = 0.0
       for (outcome_game, prob) in outcomes:
           expected_value += prob * float(self.value_fn(outcome_game, self.color))
       return expected_value
   ```

3. **Remove Lookahead for Infrastructure Actions**:
   - Since infrastructure actions are explicitly prioritized, **no need for lookahead evaluation** for Tiers 1-4.
   - Only use lookahead for Tier 5 (fallback actions).

---

### **Expected Outcome**
- **Win Rate**: Restore to **~50%+** by eliminating maritime trade overvaluation.
- **VP**: Increase average VP to **~8.5** by focusing on cities and settlements.
- **Robustness**: Avoid catastrophic drops by enforcing infrastructure-first play.

**Next Steps**: Implement this strategy in **Evolution 8** and validate performance.
END STRATEGIZER
================================== Ai Message ==================================

META THOUGHTS: After reflection, I'm concerned the strategizer's purely hierarchical approach is too simplistic and abandons our sophisticated lookahead entirely. While maritime trade overvaluation is clearly our core problem, picking the "first available" action in each tier without any evaluation could create new strategic weaknesses. We need a hybrid solution that maintains strategic depth within action types while adding hard constraints against maritime trades.

META GOAL: Implement a hybrid approach that combines hard constraints against maritime trades with maintained strategic evaluation within infrastructure action types, preserving our lookahead capabilities while directly addressing the persistent maritime trade overvaluation problem.

CHOSEN AGENT: STRATEGIZER

AGENT OBJECTIVE: Your hierarchical approach correctly identifies maritime trades as our core problem, but completely abandoning lookahead and picking "first available" actions is too simplistic and could create exploitable patterns. Design a hybrid strategy that: 1) Adds hard constraints to filter OUT maritime trades unless no infrastructure exists (solving our core problem), 2) But maintains strategic evaluation WITHIN infrastructure types using our lookahead - so we still choose the BEST city upgrade, BEST settlement location, BEST road placement, etc., 3) Keep the tier priority (cities > settlements > roads > dev cards) but use value function evaluation to choose between actions within each tier, 4) Only fall back to maritime trades if absolutely no infrastructure actions are available. This gives us the constraint benefits while preserving strategic depth.
================================ Human Message =================================

STRATEGIZER
**Hybrid Strategy: Hard Constraints + Strategic Lookahead**

### **Core Problem**
Our persistent **maritime trade overvaluation** has derailed infrastructure focus, leading to inconsistent performance. The **Evolution 2** approach (16 wins, 53%) succeeded because it balanced **infrastructure prioritization** with **strategic lookahead**, but later evolutions either over-constrained actions or failed to filter trades effectively.

### **Hybrid Solution**
1. **Hard Constraints Against Maritime Trades**:
   - **Filter out maritime trades** unless no infrastructure actions exist.
   - **Never evaluate trades** in lookahead unless absolutely necessary.

2. **Tiered Infrastructure Prioritization**:
   - **Tier 1**: `BUILD_CITY` (highest VP return).
   - **Tier 2**: `BUILD_SETTLEMENT` (VP + expansion).
   - **Tier 3**: `BUILD_ROAD` (expansion + longest road).
   - **Tier 4**: Development cards (knights, VP, monopoly).
   - **Tier 5**: Maritime trades (only if no infrastructure exists).

3. **Strategic Lookahead Within Tiers**:
   - Use **lookahead + value function** to evaluate actions **within each tier**.
   - Ensure we choose the **best city upgrade**, **best settlement location**, and **best road placement**.

4. **Fallback Mechanism**:
   - If no infrastructure actions exist, use `base_fn` to evaluate remaining actions (e.g., robber placement, development cards).

---

### **Implementation Plan**
1. **Update `decide` with Hard Constraints and Tiered Prioritization**:
   ```python
   def decide(self, game: Game, playable_actions: Iterable) -> object:
       actions = list(playable_actions)
       if not actions:
           return None

       # Filter out maritime trades unless no infrastructure exists
       infrastructure_types = {ActionType.BUILD_CITY, ActionType.BUILD_SETTLEMENT, ActionType.BUILD_ROAD}
       infrastructure_actions = [a for a in actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) in infrastructure_types]

       if infrastructure_actions:
           # Tier 1: BUILD_CITY
           city_actions = [a for a in infrastructure_actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) == ActionType.BUILD_CITY]
           if city_actions:
               best_action = max(city_actions, key=lambda a: self._evaluate_action(game, a))
               return best_action

           # Tier 2: BUILD_SETTLEMENT
           settlement_actions = [a for a in infrastructure_actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) == ActionType.BUILD_SETTLEMENT]
           if settlement_actions:
               best_action = max(settlement_actions, key=lambda a: self._evaluate_action(game, a))
               return best_action

           # Tier 3: BUILD_ROAD
           road_actions = [a for a in infrastructure_actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) == ActionType.BUILD_ROAD]
           if road_actions:
               best_action = max(road_actions, key=lambda a: self._evaluate_action(game, a))
               return best_action

       # Tier 4: Development cards
       dev_card_actions = [a for a in actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) == ActionType.BUY_DEV_CARD]
       if dev_card_actions:
           best_action = max(dev_card_actions, key=lambda a: self._evaluate_action(game, a))
           return best_action

       # Tier 5: Fallback to non-trade actions (e.g., robber)
       non_trade_actions = [a for a in actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) != ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE]
       if non_trade_actions:
           best_action = max(non_trade_actions, key=lambda a: self._evaluate_action(game, a))
           return best_action

       # Absolute fallback: Use base_fn to evaluate remaining actions
       best_action = max(actions, key=lambda a: self._evaluate_action(game, a))
       return best_action
   ```

2. **Strategic Lookahead Evaluation**:
   ```python
   def _evaluate_action(self, game: Game, action: Action) -> float:
       game_copy = copy_game(game)
       outcomes = execute_deterministic(game_copy, action)
       expected_value = 0.0
       for (outcome_game, prob) in outcomes:
           expected_value += prob * float(self.value_fn(outcome_game, self.color))
       return expected_value
   ```

3. **Preserve Robber Pruning and Debugging**:
   - Keep `prune_robber_actions` to reduce branching.
   - Retain debug prints for monitoring.

---

### **Expected Outcome**
- **Win Rate**: Restore to **~50%+** by eliminating maritime trade overvaluation while maintaining strategic depth.
- **VP**: Increase average VP to **~8.5** by focusing on cities and efficient infrastructure.
- **Robustness**: Avoid catastrophic drops by enforcing infrastructure-first play with lookahead evaluation.

**Next Steps**: Implement this strategy in **Evolution 9** and validate performance.
END STRATEGIZER
================================== Ai Message ==================================

META THOUGHTS: After deep reflection, the strategizer's hybrid approach correctly identifies the core solution - hard constraints against maritime trades while maintaining strategic evaluation within infrastructure types. However, I'm concerned the proposed _evaluate_action function is too simplified and abandons our depth-3 lookahead that may have been key to Evolution 2's success. The approach should preserve our sophisticated minimax evaluation while adding the filtering constraints.

META GOAL: Implement the hybrid strategy with hard constraints against maritime trades while preserving our successful depth-3 lookahead evaluation system, ensuring we maintain Evolution 2's sophisticated decision-making capabilities while directly addressing the maritime trade overvaluation problem.

CHOSEN AGENT: CODER

AGENT OBJECTIVE: Implement the strategizer's hybrid approach with these specific requirements: 1) Add hard constraints that filter OUT maritime trades unless no infrastructure actions exist (solving our core overvaluation problem), 2) Implement tiered infrastructure prioritization (cities > settlements > roads > dev cards), 3) But PRESERVE our depth-3 lookahead and sophisticated _evaluate_node evaluation within each tier - don't simplify to basic immediate evaluation, 4) Use our existing contender_fn/base_fn fallback system for strategic depth, 5) Keep robber pruning and defensive error handling, 6) The key is combining the maritime trade filtering with our proven lookahead system rather than replacing the evaluation entirely. This maintains Evolution 2's strategic sophistication while directly addressing our persistent maritime trade problem.
================================ Human Message =================================

This is the old foo_player.py file
Now It is your turn to update it with the new recommendations from META

import os
from typing import Iterable, List, Tuple

# MUST use adapters to interact with the game. Do NOT import catanatron directly.
from .adapters import (
    Game,
    Player,
    Color,
    copy_game,
    execute_deterministic,
    list_prunned_actions,
    prune_robber_actions,
    contender_fn,
    base_fn,
    DEFAULT_WEIGHTS,
    ActionType,
)


class FooPlayer(Player):
    """A lookahead player restored to Evolution 2 behavior.

    Key design decisions in this restoration:
    - Use contender_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS) as the primary heuristic with base_fn
      as a fallback. Evolution 2 likely used contender_fn primarily.
    - Keep lookahead_depth default at 3 for deeper planning.
    - Keep prune_robber_actions to reduce pointless robber branching, but do not
      aggressively prune infrastructure.
    - Do NOT apply explicit city bonuses or action re-ordering. Let the value
      function drive decisions naturally (as in Evolution 2).
    - Use simple maritime trade filtering only when there are more than 8
      candidate actions (Evolution 2 threshold).
    - Materialize all filtered iterables into lists to avoid filter iterator
      bugs (len() and indexing). Keep defensive error handling.
    """

    def __init__(self, name: str | None = None, lookahead_depth: int = 3):
        # Initialize as BLUE (consistent with prior implementations)
        super().__init__(Color.BLUE, name)

        # Try to use contender_fn first (restore Evolution 2 primary heuristic),
        # fall back to base_fn, then to a dumb lambda if both fail.
        try:
            self.value_fn = contender_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS)
            print('FooPlayer.__init__: Using contender_fn with DEFAULT_WEIGHTS')
        except Exception as e:
            print(f'FooPlayer.__init__: contender_fn failed, falling back to base_fn: {e}')
            try:
                self.value_fn = base_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS)
                print('FooPlayer.__init__: Using base_fn as fallback')
            except Exception as inner:
                print(f'FooPlayer.__init__: base_fn also failed, using dumb fallback. {inner}')
                self.value_fn = lambda g, c: 0.0

        # Ensure lookahead depth is at least 1
        self.lookahead_depth = max(1, int(lookahead_depth))

        # Debug counter for node expansions within a decision
        self._node_expansions = 0

    def decide(self, game: Game, playable_actions: Iterable) -> object:
        """Choose an action from playable_actions using depth-N lookahead.

        This function intentionally keeps the decision pipeline simple and
        faithful to Evolution 2:
        - Materialize iterables into lists to avoid iterator bugs.
        - Use prune_robber_actions defensively.
        - Apply simple maritime trade filtering only when there are >8 options.
        - Let the configured value function (contender_fn, then base_fn) drive
          the choice through lookahead evaluations. Do not add ad-hoc bonuses
          or heavy re-ordering.
        """
        try:
            actions = list(playable_actions)
        except Exception:
            # Defensive fallback in case playable_actions is a problematic iterable
            actions = [a for a in playable_actions]

        if not actions:
            print('FooPlayer.decide: No playable actions available, returning None')
            return None

        # Reset expansion counter
        self._node_expansions = 0

        # Detect robber actions and prune them defensively to reduce branching.
        try:
            has_robber = any(
                getattr(a, 'action_type', None) is not None and
                'ROBBER' in getattr(a.action_type, 'name', '')
                for a in actions
            )
        except Exception:
            has_robber = False

        if has_robber:
            try:
                pruned = prune_robber_actions(self.color, game, actions)
                pruned = list(pruned) if pruned is not None else pruned
                if pruned and len(pruned) < len(actions):
                    print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Pruned robber actions from {len(actions)} to {len(pruned)}')
                    actions = pruned
            except Exception as e:
                print(f'FooPlayer.decide: prune_robber_actions failed: {e}')

        # Simple maritime trade filtering only when many options exist (>8)
        try:
            if len(actions) > 8:
                non_trade_actions = [a for a in actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) != ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE]
                if non_trade_actions:
                    print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Filtering out maritime trades from {len(actions)} to {len(non_trade_actions)} actions')
                    actions = non_trade_actions
        except Exception as e:
            print(f'FooPlayer.decide: maritime trade filtering failed: {e}')

        # Evaluate all remaining actions with lookahead; do not add ad-hoc bonuses.
        best_action = None
        best_score = float('-inf')

        print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Fully evaluating {len(actions)} actions with lookahead depth={self.lookahead_depth}')

        for idx, action in enumerate(actions):
            try:
                # copy_game to avoid mutating original
                game_copy = copy_game(game)
                outcomes = execute_deterministic(game_copy, action)

                expected_value = 0.0
                for (outcome_game, prob) in outcomes:
                    node_value = self._evaluate_node(outcome_game, self.lookahead_depth - 1)
                    expected_value += prob * node_value

                print(f'  Action {idx}: expected_value={expected_value} action_type={getattr(action, "action_type", None)}')

                if expected_value > best_score:
                    best_score = expected_value
                    best_action = action

            except Exception as e:
                print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Exception while evaluating action {action}: {e}')

        # Fallback to first candidate if evaluation failed
        chosen = best_action if best_action is not None else actions[0]
        print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Chosen action={chosen} score={best_score} node_expansions={self._node_expansions}')
        return chosen

    def _evaluate_node(self, game: Game, depth: int) -> float:
        """Recursive evaluator that returns heuristic value for a game state.

        This routine uses list_prunned_actions to reduce the branching factor in
        a conservative way and also uses prune_robber_actions defensively. It
        does not apply aggressive pruning or action bonuses; the configured
        value_fn should drive preferences.
        """
        # Count node expansion
        self._node_expansions += 1

        # Base case: evaluate with heuristic
        if depth <= 0:
            try:
                return float(self.value_fn(game, self.color))
            except Exception as e:
                print(f'FooPlayer._evaluate_node: value_fn raised exception: {e}')
                return 0.0

        # Get pruned actions for this state; materialize into a list
        try:
            actions = list_prunned_actions(game)
            actions = list(actions) if actions is not None else []
        except Exception as e:
            print(f'FooPlayer._evaluate_node: list_prunned_actions failed: {e}')
            try:
                return float(self.value_fn(game, self.color))
            except Exception:
                return 0.0

        if not actions:
            try:
                return float(self.value_fn(game, self.color))
            except Exception:
                return 0.0

        # Prune robber actions defensively if present
        try:
            has_robber = any(
                getattr(a, 'action_type', None) is not None and
                'ROBBER' in getattr(a.action_type, 'name', '')
                for a in actions
            )
        except Exception:
            has_robber = False

        if has_robber:
            try:
                current_color = actions[0].color
                pruned = prune_robber_actions(current_color, game, actions)
                pruned = list(pruned) if pruned is not None else pruned
                if pruned and len(pruned) < len(actions):
                    print(f'FooPlayer._evaluate_node: Pruned robber actions from {len(actions)} to {len(pruned)}')
                    actions = pruned
            except Exception as e:
                print(f'FooPlayer._evaluate_node: prune_robber_actions failed: {e}')

        # Determine maximizing/minimizing player
        current_actor_color = actions[0].color
        is_maximizing = (current_actor_color == self.color)

        best_value = float('-inf') if is_maximizing else float('inf')

        for action in actions:
            try:
                game_copy = copy_game(game)
                outcomes = execute_deterministic(game_copy, action)

                expected = 0.0
                for (outcome_game, prob) in outcomes:
                    expected += prob * self._evaluate_node(outcome_game, depth - 1)

                if is_maximizing:
                    if expected > best_value:
                        best_value = expected
                else:
                    if expected < best_value:
                        best_value = expected

            except Exception as e:
                print(f'FooPlayer._evaluate_node: Exception on action {action}: {e}')

        # If evaluation failed to set a value, fall back to heuristic
        if best_value == float('inf') or best_value == float('-inf'):
            try:
                return float(self.value_fn(game, self.color))
            except Exception:
                return 0.0

        return best_value

================================ Human Message =================================

This is the current adapters.py file that you must use to interact with the Catanatron API

"""Unified adapter for Catanatron agents.

Expose a small, stable surface for multi-agent systems to:
- Inspect game state
- Enumerate legal actions
- Execute hypothetical moves (with/without validation)
- Expand chance outcomes (dice, dev cards, robber)
- Use pruning helpers
- Build/evaluate heuristics

Everything here is a thin re-export or trivial wrapper from catanatron & friends.
"""

from typing import Callable, List, Optional, Tuple, Dict, Any

# CORE RE-EXPORTS
from catanatron.game import Game  # Game instance with .state, .copy(), .execute(action), .winning_color()
from catanatron.models.player import Player, Color  # Player and Color types
from catanatron.models.enums import Action, ActionType  # Action = namedtuple("Action", ["color", "action_type", "value"]) 

# Player and debug node classes (re-exported so consumers can import them from adapters)
from catanatron_experimental.machine_learning.players.minimax import (
    AlphaBetaPlayer,  # Player that executes an AlphaBeta search with expected value calculation
    SameTurnAlphaBetaPlayer,  # AlphaBeta constrained to the same turn
    DebugStateNode,  # Node for debugging the AlphaBeta search tree
    DebugActionNode,  # Node representing an action in the AlphaBeta search tree
)
from catanatron_experimental.machine_learning.players.value import (
    ValueFunctionPlayer,  # Player using heuristic value functions
    DEFAULT_WEIGHTS,  # Default weight set for value functions
)

# Underlying implementation imports (underscore aliases to avoid recursion)
from catanatron_experimental.machine_learning.players.tree_search_utils import (
    execute_deterministic as _execute_deterministic,
    execute_spectrum as _execute_spectrum,
    expand_spectrum as _expand_spectrum,
    list_prunned_actions as _list_prunned_actions,  # spelling verified in source
    prune_robber_actions as _prune_robber_actions,
)
from catanatron_experimental.machine_learning.players.minimax import render_debug_tree as _render_debug_tree

from catanatron_experimental.machine_learning.players.value import (
    base_fn as _base_fn,
    contender_fn as _contender_fn,
    value_production as _value_production,
    get_value_fn as _get_value_fn,
)

# Public API
__all__ = [
    "Game",
    "Player",
    "Color",
    "Action",
    "ActionType",
    "AlphaBetaPlayer",
    "SameTurnAlphaBetaPlayer",
    "ValueFunctionPlayer",
    "DebugStateNode",
    "DebugActionNode",
    "copy_game",
    "execute_deterministic",
    "execute_spectrum",
    "expand_spectrum",
    "list_prunned_actions",
    "prune_robber_actions",
    "render_debug_tree",
    "base_fn",
    "contender_fn",
    "value_production",
    "get_value_fn",
]

# THIN CONVENIENCE WRAPPERS
def copy_game(game: Game) -> Game:
    '''Create a deep copy of the game state.'''
    return game.copy()

def execute_deterministic(game: Game, action: Action) -> List[Tuple[Game, float]]:
    '''Execute a deterministic action and return the resulting game state with probability 1.'''
    return _execute_deterministic(game, action)

def execute_spectrum(game: Game, action: Action) -> List[Tuple[Game, float]]:
    '''Return a list of (game_copy, probability) tuples for all possible outcomes of an action.'''
    return _execute_spectrum(game, action)

def expand_spectrum(game: Game, actions: List[Action]) -> Dict[Action, List[Tuple[Game, float]]]:
    '''Expand a game state into all possible outcomes for a list of actions.'''
    return _expand_spectrum(game, actions)

def list_prunned_actions(game: Game) -> List[Action]:
    '''Returns a pruned list of actions to reduce the search space.'''
    return _list_prunned_actions(game)

def prune_robber_actions(current_color: Color, game: Game, actions: List[Action]) -> List[Action]:
    '''Prunes robber actions to keep only the most impactful ones.'''
    return _prune_robber_actions(current_color, game, actions)

def render_debug_tree(node: DebugStateNode) -> str:
    '''Renders the AlphaBeta search tree using Graphviz.'''
    return _render_debug_tree(node)

# HEURISTIC BUILDERS
def base_fn(params=DEFAULT_WEIGHTS) -> Callable[[Game, Color], float]:
    '''Base value function factory for evaluating game states.'''
    return _base_fn(params)

def contender_fn(params) -> Callable[[Game, Color], float]:
    '''Alternative value function factory with tuned weights.'''
    return _contender_fn(params)

def value_production(sample, player_name: str = "P0", include_variety: bool = True) -> float:
    '''Compute the production value of a player's state.'''
    return _value_production(sample, player_name, include_variety)

def get_value_fn(name: str, params, value_function=None) -> Callable[[Game, Color], float]:
    '''Factory that returns a value function by name and parameters.'''
    return _get_value_fn(name, params, value_function)


--- Output from CODER at 20250925_045140 ---
================================== Ai Message ==================================
Tool Calls:
  write_foo (call_uQpfCI6iPaZ60t9uNWTilDNq)
 Call ID: call_uQpfCI6iPaZ60t9uNWTilDNq
  Args:
    new_text: import os
from typing import Iterable, List, Tuple

# MUST use adapters to interact with the game. Do NOT import catanatron directly.
from .adapters import (
    Game,
    Player,
    Color,
    copy_game,
    execute_deterministic,
    list_prunned_actions,
    prune_robber_actions,
    contender_fn,
    base_fn,
    DEFAULT_WEIGHTS,
    ActionType,
)


class FooPlayer(Player):
    """A hybrid lookahead player with hard constraints against maritime trades.

    Design summary:
    - Primary heuristic: contender_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS) with base_fn fallback.
    - Depth-N lookahead (default N=3) preserved for strategic evaluation.
    - Hard constraint: filter OUT maritime trades unless no infrastructure actions
      (cities/settlements/roads) exist. This prevents persistent maritime trade
      overvaluation.
    - Tiered infrastructure prioritization (cities > settlements > roads > dev
      cards), but use lookahead to choose the best action within each tier.
    - Defensive use of prune_robber_actions and materialization of lists to
      avoid iterator/filter bugs.
    - Plenty of debugging print statements to trace decisions and node counts.
    """

    def __init__(self, name: str | None = None, lookahead_depth: int = 3):
        # Initialize as BLUE (consistent with prior implementations)
        super().__init__(Color.BLUE, name)

        # Try to use contender_fn first (restore Evolution 2 primary heuristic),
        # fall back to base_fn, then to a dumb lambda if both fail.
        try:
            self.value_fn = contender_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS)
            print('FooPlayer.__init__: Using contender_fn with DEFAULT_WEIGHTS')
        except Exception as e:
            print(f'FooPlayer.__init__: contender_fn failed, falling back to base_fn: {e}')
            try:
                self.value_fn = base_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS)
                print('FooPlayer.__init__: Using base_fn as fallback')
            except Exception as inner:
                print(f'FooPlayer.__init__: base_fn also failed, using dumb fallback. {inner}')
                self.value_fn = lambda g, c: 0.0

        # Ensure lookahead depth is at least 1
        self.lookahead_depth = max(1, int(lookahead_depth))

        # Debug counter for node expansions within a decision
        self._node_expansions = 0

    def decide(self, game: Game, playable_actions: Iterable) -> object:
        """Choose an action from playable_actions using a hybrid strategy.

        Strategy:
        - Materialize iterables into lists to avoid iterator bugs.
        - Prune robber actions defensively to reduce pointless branching.
        - Hard-filter maritime trades out unless no infrastructure actions exist.
        - Use tiered infrastructure prioritization (city > settlement > road > dev)
          but use the depth-N lookahead to pick the best action within each tier.
        - If no infra actions exist, evaluate dev cards, then non-trade actions,
          and finally allow maritime trades as an absolute fallback.
        """
        try:
            actions = list(playable_actions)
        except Exception:
            # Defensive fallback in case playable_actions is a problematic iterable
            actions = [a for a in playable_actions]

        if not actions:
            print('FooPlayer.decide: No playable actions available, returning None')
            return None

        # Reset expansion counter
        self._node_expansions = 0

        # Detect robber actions and prune them defensively to reduce branching.
        try:
            has_robber = any(
                getattr(a, 'action_type', None) is not None and
                'ROBBER' in getattr(a.action_type, 'name', '')
                for a in actions
            )
        except Exception:
            has_robber = False

        if has_robber:
            try:
                pruned = prune_robber_actions(self.color, game, actions)
                pruned = list(pruned) if pruned is not None else pruned
                if pruned and len(pruned) < len(actions):
                    print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Pruned robber actions from {len(actions)} to {len(pruned)}')
                    actions = pruned
            except Exception as e:
                print(f'FooPlayer.decide: prune_robber_actions failed: {e}')

        # Materialize actions as a list (already done) and prepare tiered lists.
        try:
            infrastructure_types = {ActionType.BUILD_CITY, ActionType.BUILD_SETTLEMENT, ActionType.BUILD_ROAD}
            infra_actions = [a for a in actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) in infrastructure_types]
        except Exception as e:
            print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Failed to compute infrastructure actions: {e}')
            infra_actions = []

        # Hard-filter maritime trades only if there exist infrastructure actions.
        # This prevents the persistent maritime-trade bias.
        try:
            if infra_actions:
                non_trade_infra = [a for a in infra_actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) != ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE]
                if non_trade_infra:
                    infra_actions = non_trade_infra
                # Also reduce the global actions to non-trades when infra exists so
                # later fallbacks don't accidentally consider trades before infra.
                non_trade_actions_global = [a for a in actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) != ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE]
                if non_trade_actions_global:
                    actions = non_trade_actions_global
                    print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Infra exists, filtering out maritime trades from global actions, now {len(actions)} actions')
        except Exception as e:
            print(f'FooPlayer.decide: maritime trade hard-filtering failed: {e}')

        # Tiered evaluation: within each tier, use lookahead to pick the best action
        # Tier 1: BUILD_CITY
        def evaluate_candidates(candidates: List) -> Tuple[object, float]:
            """Evaluate a list of candidate actions using lookahead and return (best_action, best_score)."""
            best_a = None
            best_s = float('-inf')
            print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Fully evaluating {len(candidates)} candidates with lookahead depth={self.lookahead_depth}')
            for idx, a in enumerate(candidates):
                try:
                    val = self._expected_value_for_action(game, a, self.lookahead_depth)
                    print(f'  Candidate {idx}: expected_value={val} action_type={getattr(a, "action_type", None)}')
                    if val > best_s:
                        best_s = val
                        best_a = a
                except Exception as e:
                    print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Exception evaluating candidate {a}: {e}')
            return best_a, best_s

        # If infra actions exist, evaluate per-tier
        try:
            if infra_actions:
                # BUILD_CITY
                city_cands = [a for a in infra_actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) == ActionType.BUILD_CITY]
                if city_cands:
                    chosen, score = evaluate_candidates(city_cands)
                    print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Chosen city action={chosen} score={score} node_expansions={self._node_expansions}')
                    if chosen:
                        return chosen

                # BUILD_SETTLEMENT
                sett_cands = [a for a in infra_actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) == ActionType.BUILD_SETTLEMENT]
                if sett_cands:
                    chosen, score = evaluate_candidates(sett_cands)
                    print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Chosen settlement action={chosen} score={score} node_expansions={self._node_expansions}')
                    if chosen:
                        return chosen

                # BUILD_ROAD
                road_cands = [a for a in infra_actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) == ActionType.BUILD_ROAD]
                if road_cands:
                    chosen, score = evaluate_candidates(road_cands)
                    print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Chosen road action={chosen} score={score} node_expansions={self._node_expansions}')
                    if chosen:
                        return chosen
        except Exception as e:
            print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Exception during tiered infra evaluation: {e}')

        # If no infra chosen, consider development cards (BUY_DEV_CARD)
        try:
            dev_cands = [a for a in actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) == ActionType.BUY_DEV_CARD]
            if dev_cands:
                chosen, score = evaluate_candidates(dev_cands)
                print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Chosen dev card action={chosen} score={score} node_expansions={self._node_expansions}')
                if chosen:
                    return chosen
        except Exception as e:
            print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Exception evaluating dev cards: {e}')

        # Next consider non-trade actions (robber, end-turn, etc.) if any
        try:
            non_trade_cands = [a for a in actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) != ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE]
            if non_trade_cands:
                chosen, score = evaluate_candidates(non_trade_cands)
                print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Chosen non-trade action={chosen} score={score} node_expansions={self._node_expansions}')
                if chosen:
                    return chosen
        except Exception as e:
            print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Exception evaluating non-trade actions: {e}')

        # Absolute fallback: evaluate all remaining actions including maritime trades
        try:
            chosen, score = evaluate_candidates(actions)
            print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Fallback chosen action={chosen} score={score} node_expansions={self._node_expansions}')
            if chosen:
                return chosen
        except Exception as e:
            print(f'FooPlayer.decide: Exception in final fallback evaluation: {e}')

        # As a final safety net return the first action
        print('FooPlayer.decide: All evaluations failed, returning first available action')
        return actions[0]

    def _expected_value_for_action(self, game: Game, action, depth: int) -> float:
        """Compute expected value of an action by executing deterministically and
        evaluating resulting states with recursive lookahead (_evaluate_node).

        depth parameter is the full lookahead depth to pass to _evaluate_node for
        resulting states (we treat the action execution as consuming one ply).
        """
        try:
            game_copy = copy_game(game)
            outcomes = execute_deterministic(game_copy, action)

            expected_value = 0.0
            for (outcome_game, prob) in outcomes:
                try:
                    node_value = self._evaluate_node(outcome_game, max(0, depth - 1))
                except Exception as e:
                    print(f'FooPlayer._expected_value_for_action: _evaluate_node failed: {e}')
                    node_value = float(self.value_fn(outcome_game, self.color))
                expected_value += prob * node_value
            return expected_value
        except Exception as e:
            print(f'FooPlayer._expected_value_for_action: Exception executing action {action}: {e}')
            # Fallback to heuristic on current game state (conservative)
            try:
                return float(self.value_fn(game, self.color))
            except Exception:
                return 0.0

    def _evaluate_node(self, game: Game, depth: int) -> float:
        """Recursive evaluator that returns heuristic value for a game state.

        This routine uses list_prunned_actions to reduce the branching factor in
        a conservative way and also uses prune_robber_actions defensively. It
        will maximize for nodes where the current actor is this player's color
        and minimize otherwise.
        """
        # Count node expansion
        self._node_expansions += 1

        # Base case: evaluate with heuristic
        if depth <= 0:
            try:
                return float(self.value_fn(game, self.color))
            except Exception as e:
                print(f'FooPlayer._evaluate_node: value_fn raised exception: {e}')
                return 0.0

        # Get pruned actions for this state; materialize into a list
        try:
            actions = list_prunned_actions(game)
            actions = list(actions) if actions is not None else []
        except Exception as e:
            print(f'FooPlayer._evaluate_node: list_prunned_actions failed: {e}')
            try:
                return float(self.value_fn(game, self.color))
            except Exception:
                return 0.0

        if not actions:
            try:
                return float(self.value_fn(game, self.color))
            except Exception:
                return 0.0

        # Prune robber actions defensively if present
        try:
            has_robber = any(
                getattr(a, 'action_type', None) is not None and
                'ROBBER' in getattr(a.action_type, 'name', '')
                for a in actions
            )
        except Exception:
            has_robber = False

        if has_robber:
            try:
                current_color = actions[0].color
                pruned = prune_robber_actions(current_color, game, actions)
                pruned = list(pruned) if pruned is not None else pruned
                if pruned and len(pruned) < len(actions):
                    print(f'FooPlayer._evaluate_node: Pruned robber actions from {len(actions)} to {len(pruned)}')
                    actions = pruned
            except Exception as e:
                print(f'FooPlayer._evaluate_node: prune_robber_actions failed: {e}')

        # Determine maximizing/minimizing player
        current_actor_color = actions[0].color
        is_maximizing = (current_actor_color == self.color)

        best_value = float('-inf') if is_maximizing else float('inf')

        for action in actions:
            try:
                game_copy = copy_game(game)
                outcomes = execute_deterministic(game_copy, action)

                expected = 0.0
                for (outcome_game, prob) in outcomes:
                    expected += prob * self._evaluate_node(outcome_game, depth - 1)

                if is_maximizing:
                    if expected > best_value:
                        best_value = expected
                else:
                    if expected < best_value:
                        best_value = expected

            except Exception as e:
                print(f'FooPlayer._evaluate_node: Exception on action {action}: {e}')

        # If evaluation failed to set a value, fall back to heuristic
        if best_value == float('inf') or best_value == float('-inf'):
            try:
                return float(self.value_fn(game, self.color))
            except Exception:
                return 0.0

        return best_value
================================= Tool Message =================================
Name: write_foo

foo_player.py updated successfully
================================== Ai Message ==================================

CODER

Report of changes made to foo_player.py:

- Rewrote the decide flow to implement the hybrid hard-constraints + lookahead strategy:
  - Implemented a maritime-trade hard filter: maritime trades are filtered out when any infrastructure actions exist. Trades are only considered if no infra/development/non-trade actions remain.
  - Added tiered infrastructure prioritization (BUILD_CITY > BUILD_SETTLEMENT > BUILD_ROAD > BUY_DEV_CARD).
  - Within each tier, preserved depth-3 lookahead and used _expected_value_for_action (which calls _evaluate_node) to evaluate and choose the best action in the tier.
  - If no infra actions exist, the player evaluates development cards, then non-trade actions, and finally falls back to evaluating all actions (including trades) only as an absolute last resort.

- Kept primary heuristic as contender_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS) with fallback to base_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS) and a dumb lambda fallback.
  - Added debug prints in __init__ to confirm which heuristic is used.

- Preserved prune_robber_actions but used defensively:
  - Detect robber actions and call prune_robber_actions.
  - Materialize pruned results to lists to avoid iterator/filter issues.
  - Do not aggressively prune infrastructure-related actions.

- Fixed filtering bugs:
  - Replaced any use of raw filter iterators with list comprehensions and materialized lists.
  - Ensured all variables that may be iterables are converted to lists before len(), indexing, or iterations that assume materialized sequences.

- Restored depth-3 lookahead (_evaluate_node):
  - _evaluate_node materially unchanged in logic but robustified with list materialization and try/excepts.
  - It still uses list_prunned_actions and prune_robber_actions defensively.

- Added helper _expected_value_for_action:
  - Executes an action deterministically and computes expected value over outcomes using recursive _evaluate_node for lookahead.

- Debugging prints:
  - Added prints in decide to report pruning, tier entries, evaluation progress, candidate expected values, chosen actions, and node expansion counters.
  - Added prints in _expected_value_for_action for failures.

Files changed:
- foo_player.py (fully replaced with the updated version)

Notes / Questions / Next Tasks:
- I preserved the hybrid approach: hard constraints against trades with retained lookahead inside tiers. This should directly address the maritime-trade overvaluation while keeping strategic depth.
- Possible next improvements if performance still lags:
  - Add a per-decision transposition cache to avoid redundant _evaluate_node evaluations (safe optimization without changing strategy).
  - If the agent remains trade-averse (too rigid), add a small soft-threshold to allow trades that are strictly better than infra options by a margin.
  - Tune contender_fn DEFAULT_WEIGHTS or consider switching to base_fn temporarily if logs show persistent anomalies.

END CODER

