--- Input for META at 20250925_045920 ---
================================ Human Message =================================

GAME RESULTS:

{
  "Player Summary": {
    "AlphaBetaPlayer:RED(depth=2,value_fn=base_fn,prunning=False)": {
      "WINS": 21,
      "AVG VP": 9.0,
      "AVG SETTLES": 2.6,
      "AVG CITIES": 2.7,
      "AVG ROAD": 0.5,
      "AVG ARMY": 0.0,
      "AVG DEV VP": 0.0
    },
    "FooPlayer:BLUE": {
      "WINS": 9,
      "AVG VP": 6.966666666666667,
      "AVG SETTLES": 2.566666666666667,
      "AVG CITIES": 1.3333333333333333,
      "AVG ROAD": 0.5,
      "AVG ARMY": 0.13333333333333333,
      "AVG DEV VP": 0.4666666666666667
    }
  },
  "Game Summary": {
    "AVG TICKS": 221.3,
    "AVG TURNS": 76.7,
    "AVG DURATION": 4.352547558148702
  }
}
================================ Human Message =================================

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

---
### **PERFORMANCE SUMMARY**
- **Outcome**: **Poor** (9 wins, 21 losses).
- **VP Comparison**: FooPlayer (6.97 VP) vs. Opponent (9.0 VP), **VP Diff: -2.03**.
- **Key Counts**:
  - Settlements: 2.57
  - Cities: 1.33
  - Roads: 0.5
  - Dev Cards: 0.47
  - Total Turns: 76.7

---
### **VERDICT**
**Poor**: FooPlayer lost 21/30 games with a significant VP deficit of -2.03. The player struggles with infrastructure development and long-term strategy.

---
### **LIKELY REASONS**
1. **Overvaluation of Maritime Trades**:
   - Despite prioritizing infrastructure, the player still selects `MARITIME_TRADE` actions frequently, even when higher-value 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=('WOOD', 'WOOD', 'WOOD', 'WOOD', 'BRICK')) score=1799999986138444.0 node_expansions=77
     FooPlayer.decide: Chosen action=Action(color=<Color.BLUE: 'BLUE'>, action_type=<ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE: 'MARITIME_TRADE'>, value=('SHEEP', 'SHEEP', 'SHEEP', 'SHEEP', 'BRICK')) score=1799999986140300.2 node_expansions=71
     ```
   - This suggests the **value function (`base_fn`)** may still overvalue short-term resource gains.

2. **Insufficient Road Expansion**:
   - The player builds **fewer roads (0.5 avg)** compared to the opponent (0.5 avg), limiting expansion and resource access.
   - **Log Evidence**:
     ```
     FooPlayer.decide: Prioritizing 17 infrastructure actions over 18 total
     FooPlayer.decide: Chosen action=Action(color=<Color.BLUE: 'BLUE'>, action_type=<ActionType.BUILD_ROAD: 'BUILD_ROAD'>, value=(19, 21)) score=1799999986141967.8 node_expansions=51
     ```
   - While roads are prioritized, the player fails to execute 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=1799999952808647.0 action_type=ActionType.END_TURN
       Action 1: expected_value=1799999986141966.2 action_type=ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE
       Action 2: expected_value=1799999986141979.8 action_type=ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE
       Action 3: expected_value=1799999986141963.2 action_type=ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE
       Action 4: expected_value=1799999986141990.2 action_type=ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE
     FooPlayer.decide: Chosen action=Action(color=<Color.BLUE: 'BLUE'>, action_type=<ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE: 'MARITIME_TRADE'>, value=('WOOD', 'WOOD', 'WOOD', 'WOOD', 'WHEAT')) score=1799999986141990.2 node_expansions=39
     ```

---
### **STRATEGIC FLAW**
The player's **value function (`base_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 (`base_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 evolution progression, I've identified that we've been chasing incremental fixes without understanding Evolution 2's fundamental success factors. We've now tested both contender_fn and base_fn with persistent maritime trade overvaluation across both. Evolution 2 achieved 53% win rate (16 wins, 8.27 VP) and we've plateaued well below that despite multiple approaches. Since incremental tweaks haven't restored peak performance, we need a more dramatic strategic shift - perhaps a fundamentally different algorithmic approach rather than value function tuning.

META GOAL: Since incremental improvements have failed to restore Evolution 2's peak performance (53% win rate) and maritime trade overvaluation persists across both value functions, design a fundamentally different algorithmic strategy that moves beyond simple value function optimization to a more sophisticated decision-making approach.

CHOSEN AGENT: STRATEGIZER

AGENT OBJECTIVE: We have hit a strategic plateau. Despite testing both contender_fn and base_fn, plus various prioritization schemes, we cannot restore Evolution 2's peak performance (16 wins, 53% win rate, 8.27 VP). Maritime trade overvaluation persists across all value functions we've tested. Our current approach of tweaking heuristics and prioritization isn't working. Design a fundamentally different algorithmic strategy that moves beyond simple lookahead + value function. Consider approaches like: Monte Carlo tree search, multi-objective optimization, rule-based action filtering with hard constraints, or dynamic strategy switching. We need a clever algorithmic breakthrough, not more incremental heuristic tuning. Focus on creating a robust decision-making system that can consistently avoid maritime trade traps and prioritize winning infrastructure actions.
================================ Human Message =================================

STRATEGIZER
**New Algorithmic Strategy: Dynamic Multi-Objective Optimization with Hard Constraints**

### **Core Issue Identified**
Evolution 2's success was not due to a specific value function but rather its **implicit hard constraints** on action selection:
1. **Maritime Trade Filtering**: Only filtered trades when **>8 actions** were available, allowing flexibility.
2. **Infrastructure Focus**: Prioritized `BUILD_CITY`, `BUILD_SETTLEMENT`, and `BUILD_ROAD` **without aggressive pruning**.
3. **Robber Pruning**: Used `prune_robber_actions` to reduce branching but **did not exclude infrastructure actions**.

Our incremental tweaks failed because they **over-constrained** the decision-making process, leading to suboptimal infrastructure choices.

---

### **Proposed Strategy: Dynamic Multi-Objective Optimization**
Replace the current lookahead + value function approach with a **multi-objective optimization framework** that:
1. **Hard Constraints**:
   - **Never prioritize maritime trades** unless no infrastructure actions are available.
   - **Always evaluate `BUILD_CITY` first** if resources allow.
   - **Limit robber actions** to disruptive placements only.

2. **Dynamic Weighting**:
   - Use a **weighted scoring system** for actions based on:
     - **VP Potential**: Cities (2 VP) > Settlements (1 VP) > Roads (0 VP).
     - **Resource Efficiency**: Favor actions that use resources likely to be wasted (e.g., excess brick/wood).
     - **Opponent Disruption**: Prioritize robber placements that block opponents' high-probability resource tiles.

3. **Fallback Mechanism**:
   - If no infrastructure actions are available, use `base_fn` to evaluate trades or development cards.

---

### **Implementation Steps**
1. **Replace Value Function with Multi-Objective Scoring**:
   - Define a scoring function that combines:
     - VP potential (e.g., +20 for cities, +10 for settlements).
     - Resource efficiency (e.g., +5 for using excess resources).
     - Opponent disruption (e.g., +15 for blocking high-yield tiles).

2. **Hard Constraints in `decide`**:
   ```python
   def decide(self, game: Game, playable_actions: Iterable) -> object:
       actions = list(playable_actions)
       if not actions:
           return None

       # Hard constraint: 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:
           # Prioritize BUILD_CITY
           city_actions = [a for a in infrastructure_actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) == ActionType.BUILD_CITY]
           if city_actions:
               actions = city_actions
           else:
               actions = infrastructure_actions
       else:
           # Fallback: Use base_fn to evaluate non-infrastructure actions
           actions = [a for a in actions if getattr(a, 'action_type', None) != ActionType.MARITIME_TRADE] or actions

       # Evaluate actions using multi-objective scoring
       best_action = max(actions, key=lambda a: self._score_action(game, a))
       return best_action
   ```

3. **Multi-Objective Scoring Function**:
   ```python
   def _score_action(self, game: Game, action: Action) -> float:
       score = 0.0
       action_type = getattr(action, 'action_type', None)

       # VP Potential
       if action_type == ActionType.BUILD_CITY:
           score += 20
       elif action_type == ActionType.BUILD_SETTLEMENT:
           score += 10

       # Resource Efficiency
       if self._uses_excess_resources(game, action):
           score += 5

       # Opponent Disruption (for robber actions)
       if action_type == ActionType.PLACE_ROBBER:
           score += self._calculate_robber_disruption(game, action)

       return score
   ```

4. **Helper Functions**:
   - `_uses_excess_resources`: Checks if the action consumes resources the player has in excess.
   - `_calculate_robber_disruption`: Estimates how much the robber placement disrupts opponents.

---

### **Expected Outcome**
- **Win Rate**: Restore to **~53%** by focusing on high-VP infrastructure and dynamic scoring.
- **VP**: Increase average VP to **~8.5** by prioritizing cities and efficient resource use.
- **Robustness**: Avoid maritime trade overvaluation by hard constraints and multi-objective scoring.

**Next Steps**: Implement this strategy in **Evolution 7** and validate performance.
END STRATEGIZER
================================== Ai 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.
================================ Human 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 =================================

GAME RESULTS:

{
  "Player Summary": {
    "AlphaBetaPlayer:RED(depth=2,value_fn=base_fn,prunning=False)": {
      "WINS": 24,
      "AVG VP": 9.2,
      "AVG SETTLES": 2.6666666666666665,
      "AVG CITIES": 2.5,
      "AVG ROAD": 0.7333333333333333,
      "AVG ARMY": 0.0,
      "AVG DEV VP": 0.06666666666666667
    },
    "FooPlayer:BLUE": {
      "WINS": 6,
      "AVG VP": 6.233333333333333,
      "AVG SETTLES": 2.2333333333333334,
      "AVG CITIES": 1.3,
      "AVG ROAD": 0.26666666666666666,
      "AVG ARMY": 0.23333333333333334,
      "AVG DEV VP": 0.4
    }
  },
  "Game Summary": {
    "AVG TICKS": 203.16666666666666,
    "AVG TURNS": 70.7,
    "AVG DURATION": 3.3479575792948406
  }
}
================================ 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 =================================

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

GAME RESULTS:

{
  "Player Summary": {
    "AlphaBetaPlayer:RED(depth=2,value_fn=base_fn,prunning=False)": {
      "WINS": 24,
      "AVG VP": 9.1,
      "AVG SETTLES": 2.6333333333333333,
      "AVG CITIES": 2.4,
      "AVG ROAD": 0.8,
      "AVG ARMY": 0.0,
      "AVG DEV VP": 0.06666666666666667
    },
    "FooPlayer:BLUE": {
      "WINS": 6,
      "AVG VP": 6.766666666666667,
      "AVG SETTLES": 2.7,
      "AVG CITIES": 1.0333333333333334,
      "AVG ROAD": 0.2,
      "AVG ARMY": 0.3333333333333333,
      "AVG DEV VP": 0.9333333333333333
    }
  },
  "Game Summary": {
    "AVG TICKS": 245.8,
    "AVG TURNS": 86.26666666666667,
    "AVG DURATION": 4.642612481117249
  }
}
================================ 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 (6.77 VP) vs. Opponent (9.1 VP), **VP Diff: -2.33**.
- **Key Counts**:
  - Settlements: 2.7
  - Cities: 1.03
  - Roads: 0.2
  - Dev Cards: 0.4
  - Total Turns: 86.27

---
### **VERDICT**
**Poor**: FooPlayer lost 24/30 games with a significant VP deficit of -2.33. The player struggles with infrastructure development, particularly road expansion and long-term strategy.

---
### **LIKELY REASONS**
1. **Insufficient Road Expansion**:
   - The player builds **fewer roads (0.2 avg)** compared to the opponent (0.8 avg), severely limiting expansion and resource access.
   - **Log Evidence**:
     ```
     FooPlayer.decide: Chosen road action=Action(color=<Color.BLUE: 'BLUE'>, action_type=<ActionType.BUILD_ROAD: 'BUILD_ROAD'>, value=(22, 49)) score=1199999983352794.5 node_expansions=52
     FooPlayer.decide: Fully evaluating 10 candidates with lookahead depth=3
       Candidate 0: expected_value=899999947246690.0 action_type=ActionType.BUILD_ROAD
       Candidate 1: expected_value=1199999983352794.5 action_type=ActionType.BUILD_ROAD
     ```
   - While roads are occasionally built, the player fails to prioritize them consistently.

2. **Excessive Node Expansions for Low-Impact Actions**:
   - The player spends excessive computational effort evaluating low-impact actions (e.g., `PLAY_YEAR_OF_PLENTY`).
   - **Log Evidence**:
     ```
     FooPlayer.decide: Fully evaluating 16 candidates with lookahead depth=3
       Candidate 0: expected_value=1199999877801969.0 action_type=ActionType.PLAY_YEAR_OF_PLENTY
       Candidate 1: expected_value=899999847246434.2 action_type=ActionType.PLAY_YEAR_OF_PLENTY
       ...
     FooPlayer.decide: Chosen non-trade action=Action(color=<Color.BLUE: 'BLUE'>, action_type=<ActionType.PLAY_YEAR_OF_PLENTY: 'PLAY_YEAR_OF_PLENTY'>, value=('BRICK', 'ORE')) score=1499999902796950.2 node_expansions=907
     ```
   - This indicates inefficient use of computational resources.

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. **Exceptions in Dev Card Evaluation**:
   - The player frequently encounters exceptions while evaluating `BUY_DEV_CARD` actions, leading to missed opportunities.
   - **Log Evidence**:
     ```
     FooPlayer.decide: Exception evaluating dev cards: BUY_DEV_CARD
     FooPlayer.decide: Exception evaluating dev cards: BUY_DEV_CARD
     FooPlayer.decide: Exception evaluating dev cards: BUY_DEV_CARD
     ```

---
### **STRATEGIC FLAW**
The player's **road expansion strategy is critically weak**, and its **aggressive pruning of robber actions** and **inefficient evaluation of dev cards** further undermine its ability to compete effectively.

---
### **NEXT STEP**
Send to **Coder** to **fix the dev card evaluation exceptions** and **adjust the road prioritization logic** to ensure consistent road expansion.

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

META THOUGHTS: After reflection, I see we've successfully eliminated maritime trade overvaluation but created new problems. We're at 6 wins (20% win rate) for two evolutions with no improvement. The analyzer identifies critical tactical issues: dev card evaluation exceptions, weak road expansion (0.2 vs opponent's 0.8), and aggressive robber pruning. Since we've been declining for 6 evolutions since our Evolution 2 peak, we need tactical bug fixes rather than more strategic overhauls.

META GOAL: Fix the immediate technical bugs and tactical weaknesses identified by the analyzer - specifically dev card evaluation exceptions and road expansion prioritization - while maintaining our successful maritime trade filtering to stabilize performance before attempting further strategic improvements.

CHOSEN AGENT: CODER

AGENT OBJECTIVE: Fix the critical tactical issues identified by the analyzer without changing our overall strategy: 1) Debug and fix the frequent dev card evaluation exceptions ("Exception evaluating dev cards: BUY_DEV_CARD"), 2) Improve road expansion prioritization since we're building far fewer roads (0.2 avg vs opponent's 0.8 avg), 3) Reduce aggressive robber pruning that limits strategic options, 4) Optimize node expansion efficiency for low-impact actions, 5) Keep the maritime trade filtering that successfully eliminated overvaluation, 6) Add better error handling and defensive programming to prevent evaluation failures. Focus on bug fixes and tactical improvements rather than strategic overhauls.
================================ Human Message =================================

CODER

Summary — what I changed in foo_player.py
- Fixed the immediate tactical bugs and implemented the requested tactical improvements while preserving the hybrid lookahead + maritime-filtering strategy.
- Key goals met:
  - Addressed dev-card evaluation exceptions with robust per-candidate try/except and graceful fallback to heuristic when lookahead fails.
  - Encouraged road expansion via a small ROAD_BONUS added to BUILD_ROAD candidate evaluations.
  - Reduced overly aggressive robber pruning by pruning only when branching is large (threshold ROBBER_PRUNE_MIN_ACTIONS).
  - Mitigated runaway node expansions with a per-candidate expansion safety cap (PER_ACTION_EXPANSION_LIMIT): if a candidate triggers too many node expansions, abort its full lookahead and use the heuristic fallback for that candidate.
  - Preserved maritime trade hard-filtering (trades filtered out when infra exists), depth-3 lookahead, and the contender_fn primary heuristic with base_fn fallback.

Concrete code changes
- New tunable constants (class-level):
  - PER_ACTION_EXPANSION_LIMIT = 300
  - ROBBER_PRUNE_MIN_ACTIONS = 8
  - ROAD_BONUS = 5.0
- Heuristic selection:
  - Restored primary contender_fn(DEFAULT_WEIGHTS) usage with base_fn fallback and a dumb lambda fallback if both fail. Debug prints confirm which is used.
- Robber pruning:
  - Only call prune_robber_actions when len(actions) > ROBBER_PRUNE_MIN_ACTIONS to avoid over-pruning small action sets.
  - Materialize prune_robber_actions return as list before len()/use.
  - Added debug prints describing whether pruning applied or skipped.
- Materialization fixes:
  - All uses of filter-like logic now produce concrete lists (list comprehensions / list()) to avoid 'filter' iterators causing len() or subscripting errors.
- Candidate evaluation (evaluate_candidates inner function):
  - Evaluates each candidate using the full lookahead via _expected_value_for_action.
  - Tracks node expansions consumed per-candidate (using self._node_expansions).
  - If a candidate consumes more than PER_ACTION_EXPANSION_LIMIT nodes, abort its deep search and fall back to immediate heuristic evaluation for that candidate (safe degraded decision).
  - Adds ROAD_BONUS to BUILD_ROAD evaluations to nudge road-building when values are otherwise similar.
  - Surrounds per-candidate evaluation in try/except to avoid a single failing candidate aborting the whole evaluation.
  - Prints per-candidate expected values and any fallbacks triggered.
- Dev-card evaluation robustness:
  - Rewrote dev card evaluation to iterate candidates individually with try/except and the same per-candidate expansion safety behavior. This prevents exceptions from removing all dev options and logs failures.
- _expected_value_for_action:
  - Executes the action deterministically, iterates outcomes, and calls _evaluate_node on outcomes. If _evaluate_node fails for an outcome, gracefully falls back to the value function for that outcome.
  - Entire action execution is try/except with heuristic fallback if execution fails.
- _evaluate_node:
  - Materializes list_prunned_actions to a list, handles exceptions, and returns heuristic value if action enumeration fails.
  - Robber pruning conditionally applied only when branching is large (same threshold as decide()).
  - Maintains maximizing/minimizing recursion with lookahead depth control.
  - Defensive fallbacks to heuristic when no actions or when exceptions occur.
- Debugging output:
  - Added/retained prints throughout to trace: heuristic in use, pruning decisions, how many candidates are evaluated, per-candidate expected values, when fallbacks are used, and node expansion counts.

Files touched
- foo_player.py (fully updated). No changes were made to adapters.py (must remain the single surface to interact with the game).

New helper constructs
- evaluate_candidates — inner helper function in decide() that evaluates candidate lists with safety caps (not a top-level function).
- PER_ACTION_EXPANSION_LIMIT, ROBBER_PRUNE_MIN_ACTIONS, ROAD_BONUS — introduced as class constants to tune behavior without changing logic.

Why these changes address the Analyzer issues
- Dev card exceptions: dev candidate evaluation now catches per-candidate exceptions, logs them, continues evaluating other dev cards, and falls back to heuristic for an individual candidate that causes evaluation issues — so one bad dev evaluation won't cause a whole dev-tier failure.
- Road expansion: ROAD_BONUS gives roads a modest numeric nudge during candidate comparisons, improving the priority for road builds when the lookahead value is close to other infra options.
- Aggressive robber pruning: pruning now happens only for larger branching situations, which preserves robber options in smaller/normal decision contexts.
- Excessive node expansions: PER_ACTION_EXPANSION_LIMIT prevents any single candidate from monopolizing the decision time and exploding node counts; instead it uses a safe heuristic fallback for that candidate if it would otherwise exceed the limit.

Debugging aids added
- Clear prints showing:
  - Which heuristic was selected at initialization.
  - Whether robber pruning was applied or skipped and why.
  - How many candidates are being fully evaluated.
  - Per-candidate expected values and when fallback heuristics were used because of node caps.
  - Final chosen action and node_expansions.

Potential follow-ups / tuning suggestions
- Tune constants:
  - PER_ACTION_EXPANSION_LIMIT (lower if time/compute remains high; raise if decisions are too approximate).
  - ROBBER_PRUNE_MIN_ACTIONS (reduce if pruning should kick in earlier, increase if pruning is too aggressive).
  - ROAD_BONUS (adjust to balance road vs other infra).
- Add a per-decision transposition table (memoization) to avoid re-evaluating identical states — safe optimization that preserves strategy while improving node efficiency.
- If dev-card exceptions persist, capture and log full exception stack traces (if environment supports it) to identify root cause in adapters or game state transitions.
- If maritime trade still causes issues, consider a small soft penalty on MARITIME_TRADE rather than only hard filtering — but keep hard-filtering as primary defense.

Notes / uncertainties
- I used ActionType constants from the adapters import (e.g., ActionType.BUILD_ROAD). This must match the underlying ActionType enum names in adapters.py (which are imported from the catanatron models). If the enum members differ, we should update those name references accordingly.
- I assumed list_prunned_actions and prune_robber_actions return iterables compatible with list() conversion — the code materializes them into concrete lists defensively.
- I believe the syntax and logic conform to Python 3.11 and the adapter API; I added defensive try/excepts around all adapter calls to prevent crashes in production runs.

If you'd like next, I can:
- Add a per-decision transposition cache (fast win with fewer node expansions).
- Expose ROAD_BONUS and PER_ACTION_EXPANSION_LIMIT as constructor parameters for easy tuning in experiments.
- Add more precise logging for dev-card exceptions (e.g., stack traces) to identify adapter-level bugs.

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

GAME RESULTS:

{
  "Player Summary": {
    "AlphaBetaPlayer:RED(depth=2,value_fn=base_fn,prunning=False)": {
      "WINS": 19,
      "AVG VP": 8.566666666666666,
      "AVG SETTLES": 3.033333333333333,
      "AVG CITIES": 2.066666666666667,
      "AVG ROAD": 0.7,
      "AVG ARMY": 0.0,
      "AVG DEV VP": 0.0
    },
    "FooPlayer:BLUE": {
      "WINS": 11,
      "AVG VP": 6.733333333333333,
      "AVG SETTLES": 2.6666666666666665,
      "AVG CITIES": 1.0,
      "AVG ROAD": 0.3,
      "AVG ARMY": 0.3333333333333333,
      "AVG DEV VP": 0.8
    }
  },
  "Game Summary": {
    "AVG TICKS": 228.1,
    "AVG TURNS": 80.33333333333333,
    "AVG DURATION": 4.159521047274271
  }
}
================================ Human Message =================================

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

---
### **PERFORMANCE SUMMARY**
- **Outcome**: **Borderline** (11 wins, 19 losses).
- **VP Comparison**: FooPlayer (6.73 VP) vs. Opponent (8.57 VP), **VP Diff: -1.84**.
- **Key Counts**:
  - Settlements: 2.67
  - Cities: 1.0
  - Roads: 0.3
  - Dev Cards: 0.8
  - Total Turns: 80.33

---
### **VERDICT**
**Borderline**: FooPlayer won 11/30 games but lost with a VP deficit of -1.84. The player shows some improvement in settlements and dev cards but struggles with road expansion and long-term strategy.

---
### **LIKELY REASONS**
1. **Persistent Dev Card Evaluation Exceptions**:
   - The player frequently encounters exceptions while evaluating `BUY_DEV_CARD` actions, leading to missed opportunities.
   - **Log Evidence**:
     ```
     FooPlayer.decide: Exception evaluating dev cards: BUY_DEV_CARD
     FooPlayer.decide: Exception evaluating dev cards: BUY_DEV_CARD
     FooPlayer.decide: Exception evaluating dev cards: BUY_DEV_CARD
     ```
   - This suggests a **critical bug in the dev card evaluation logic** in `_expected_value_for_action` or `_evaluate_node`.

2. **Insufficient Road Expansion**:
   - The player builds **fewer roads (0.3 avg)** compared to the opponent (0.7 avg), limiting expansion and resource access.
   - **Log Evidence**:
     ```
     FooPlayer.decide: Chosen road action=Action(color=<Color.BLUE: 'BLUE'>, action_type=<ActionType.BUILD_ROAD: 'BUILD_ROAD'>, value=(11, 32)) score=899999963922839.9 node_expansions=370
     FooPlayer.decide: Chosen road action=Action(color=<Color.BLUE: 'BLUE'>, action_type=<ActionType.BUILD_ROAD: 'BUILD_ROAD'>, value=(22, 49)) score=899999950032196.8 node_expansions=308
     ```
   - While roads are occasionally built, the player fails to prioritize them consistently.

3. **Excessive Node Expansions for Low-Impact Actions**:
   - The player spends excessive computational effort evaluating low-impact actions (e.g., `BUILD_ROAD`).
   - **Log Evidence**:
     ```
     FooPlayer.decide: Fully evaluating 13 candidates with lookahead depth=3
       Candidate 0: expected_value=899999916704553.6 action_type=ActionType.BUILD_ROAD
       Candidate 1: expected_value=899999916702998.0 action_type=ActionType.BUILD_ROAD
       ...
     FooPlayer.decide: Chosen road action=Action(color=<Color.BLUE: 'BLUE'>, action_type=<ActionType.BUILD_ROAD: 'BUILD_ROAD'>, value=(3, 4)) score=1499999916701054.0 node_expansions=854
     ```
   - This indicates inefficient use of computational resources.

4. **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.

---
### **STRATEGIC FLAW**
The player's **dev card evaluation logic is broken**, causing repeated exceptions and missed opportunities. Additionally, its **road expansion strategy is weak**, and **aggressive pruning of robber actions** further undermines its ability to compete effectively.

---
### **NEXT STEP**
Send to **Coder** to **fix the dev card evaluation exceptions** in `_expected_value_for_action` and `_evaluate_node`, and **adjust the road prioritization logic** to ensure consistent road expansion.

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

--- Output from META at 20250925_045945 ---
================================== Ai Message ==================================

[{'id': 'toolu_018PNTEVcdb57fDEbfewMQ1v', 'input': {'reflection': 'Looking at the performance history and current situation, I need to analyze what\'s happening:\n\nEvolution 9: 11 wins (37% win rate) - This is actually our best performance since Evolution 2! We\'ve been at 6 wins for the last 2 evolutions, so this represents meaningful improvement.\n\nThe analyzer is being overly pessimistic calling this "borderline" when it\'s actually our second-best performance in the entire evolution history:\n- Evolution 2: 16 wins (53%) - Peak\n- Evolution 9: 11 wins (37%) - Current, second best\n- Evolution 1: 11 wins (37%) - Tied for second\n- Evolution 5: 13 wins (43%) - Actually our second best, I was wrong\n\nWait, let me recheck:\n- Evolution 2: 16 wins (best)\n- Evolution 5: 13 wins (second best) \n- Evolution 1: 11 wins (tied for third)\n- Evolution 9: 11 wins (tied for third)\n\nSo we\'re tied for third-best performance, but more importantly, we\'ve broken out of the 6-win plateau we were stuck in for Evolutions 7-8.\n\nThe persistent dev card evaluation exceptions are clearly a bug that needs fixing, but the core strategy improvements (maritime trade filtering, road bonuses, reduced robber pruning) seem to be working. We\'re moving in the right direction.\n\nThe key insight is that we shouldn\'t see this as a failure - this represents meaningful progress from our recent low of 6 wins. We should fix the technical bugs while preserving the strategic improvements that got us here.'}, 'name': 'think_tool', 'type': 'tool_use'}]
Tool Calls:
  think_tool (toolu_018PNTEVcdb57fDEbfewMQ1v)
 Call ID: toolu_018PNTEVcdb57fDEbfewMQ1v
  Args:
    reflection: Looking at the performance history and current situation, I need to analyze what's happening:

Evolution 9: 11 wins (37% win rate) - This is actually our best performance since Evolution 2! We've been at 6 wins for the last 2 evolutions, so this represents meaningful improvement.

The analyzer is being overly pessimistic calling this "borderline" when it's actually our second-best performance in the entire evolution history:
- Evolution 2: 16 wins (53%) - Peak
- Evolution 9: 11 wins (37%) - Current, second best
- Evolution 1: 11 wins (37%) - Tied for second
- Evolution 5: 13 wins (43%) - Actually our second best, I was wrong

Wait, let me recheck:
- Evolution 2: 16 wins (best)
- Evolution 5: 13 wins (second best) 
- Evolution 1: 11 wins (tied for third)
- Evolution 9: 11 wins (tied for third)

So we're tied for third-best performance, but more importantly, we've broken out of the 6-win plateau we were stuck in for Evolutions 7-8.

The persistent dev card evaluation exceptions are clearly a bug that needs fixing, but the core strategy improvements (maritime trade filtering, road bonuses, reduced robber pruning) seem to be working. We're moving in the right direction.

The key insight is that we shouldn't see this as a failure - this represents meaningful progress from our recent low of 6 wins. We should fix the technical bugs while preserving the strategic improvements that got us here.
================================= Tool Message =================================
Name: think_tool

Reflection recorded: Looking at the performance history and current situation, I need to analyze what's happening:

Evolution 9: 11 wins (37% win rate) - This is actually our best performance since Evolution 2! We've been at 6 wins for the last 2 evolutions, so this represents meaningful improvement.

The analyzer is being overly pessimistic calling this "borderline" when it's actually our second-best performance in the entire evolution history:
- Evolution 2: 16 wins (53%) - Peak
- Evolution 9: 11 wins (37%) - Current, second best
- Evolution 1: 11 wins (37%) - Tied for second
- Evolution 5: 13 wins (43%) - Actually our second best, I was wrong

Wait, let me recheck:
- Evolution 2: 16 wins (best)
- Evolution 5: 13 wins (second best) 
- Evolution 1: 11 wins (tied for third)
- Evolution 9: 11 wins (tied for third)

So we're tied for third-best performance, but more importantly, we've broken out of the 6-win plateau we were stuck in for Evolutions 7-8.

The persistent dev card evaluation exceptions are clearly a bug that needs fixing, but the core strategy improvements (maritime trade filtering, road bonuses, reduced robber pruning) seem to be working. We're moving in the right direction.

The key insight is that we shouldn't see this as a failure - this represents meaningful progress from our recent low of 6 wins. We should fix the technical bugs while preserving the strategic improvements that got us here.
================================== Ai Message ==================================

META THOUGHTS: Evolution 9 achieved 11 wins (37% win rate), breaking us out of the 6-win plateau we were stuck in for Evolutions 7-8. This is tied for our third-best performance ever and represents meaningful progress. The core strategic improvements (maritime trade filtering, road bonuses, reduced robber pruning) are working. The persistent dev card evaluation exceptions are clearly a technical bug that needs fixing, but we should preserve the strategic framework that's showing improvement.

META GOAL: Fix the persistent dev card evaluation exceptions that are causing missed opportunities while preserving the strategic improvements from Evolution 9 that successfully broke us out of our performance plateau and achieved our best results since Evolution 5.

CHOSEN AGENT: CODER

AGENT OBJECTIVE: Evolution 9 shows meaningful improvement (11 wins vs 6 wins in previous evolutions), so preserve the core strategic framework while fixing the critical technical bug. The persistent dev card evaluation exceptions are clearly preventing us from reaching higher performance. Debug and fix the specific bug in dev card evaluation logic - likely in _expected_value_for_action or _evaluate_node when handling BUY_DEV_CARD actions. Add more detailed error logging to identify the root cause, implement robust error handling for dev card evaluation, and ensure dev cards can be properly evaluated without exceptions. Keep all other improvements: maritime trade filtering, road bonuses, reduced robber pruning, and per-candidate expansion limits that helped achieve this performance recovery.

