News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why SWE-bench Verified no longer measures frontier coding... by CamperBob2 on Sunday April 26, 2026 @01:13PM (#47911933)
Actually the Zorks weren't deterministic, especially Zork II. The Wizard could F you over pretty badly if he appeared at an inopportune time.
Re:Why SWE-bench Verified no longer measures frontier coding... by Schlagbohrer on Monday April 27, 2026 @04:53AM (#47919220)
Was that using an RNG? Or is the entire game deterministic?
Re:Why SWE-bench Verified no longer measures frontier coding... by CamperBob2 on Monday April 27, 2026 @11:40AM (#47923059)
It used an RNG. The usual practice back then was to spin a counter while waiting for keypresses, so that might affect the question when dealing with an external harness, I suppose.
Re:Why SWE-bench Verified no longer measures frontier coding... by mnky9800n on Monday April 27, 2026 @09:58AM (#47921671)
I feel like you are being pedantic. There are very few parts of Zork that are not static to the game. Yes the thief shows up randomly but that’s not the main point of the game.
Re:Why SWE-bench Verified no longer measures frontier coding... by CamperBob2 on Monday April 27, 2026 @11:44AM (#47923108)
It is not the least bit pedantic. Games were meaner back then. If you're on a time (turn)-limited section of the game, or in a vulnerable spot like the volcano, random encounters with the wizard could render the game unwinnable without dying, which would completely wreck a benchmark. Same for the thief in Zork 1. If he randomly steals your light source, you're done for. Or if the RNG dictates that you lose the fight with the troll.

Can't recall anything like that in Zork 3. (Edit: apparently you could get shot randomly when using the time machine in the Royal Museum.)