/
invalidGames.csv
We can make this file beautiful and searchable if this error is corrected: It looks like row 3 should actually have 2 columns, instead of 1. in line 2.
89 lines (89 loc) · 14.9 KB
/
invalidGames.csv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
DRESDEN/Nine_Mens_Morris_0.11_2p/h31Ruw;Validator: The sentence with the name closingMill appears with two different arities, 5 and 3.
DRESDEN/themathematician_medium/60rnCw;Validator: The function with the name operation appears with two different arities, 1 and 2
DRESDEN/meier/AH3Z_g;Validator: The keyword does is being used as a function. It should only be used as the name of a sentence.
DRESDEN/ruledepthquadratic/mNApLg;Validator: ( <= ( legal robot giveup ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
DRESDEN/asteroids/1EYqAw;Validator: ( <= ( legal ship thrust ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
DRESDEN/eotcitcit/-8luRQ;Validator: ( terminal ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/sudoku_simple/AIr0oQ;Validator: The function with the name cell appears with two different arities, 2 and 3
DRESDEN/themathematician_easy/sD2kbQ;Validator: The function with the name operation appears with two different arities, 1 and 2
DRESDEN/blocksworldserial/GkRZ3w;Validator: ( game1overlock ) is written as a zero-arity function, it should be written as a constant instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/tictactoeserial/xxjGZQ;Validator: ( game1overlock ) is written as a zero-arity function, it should be written as a constant instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/tritactoe/C9k7-w;Validator: Unsafe rule ( <= ( distinctCell ?x ?y ?m ?n ) ( distinct ?x ?m ) ): Variable ?x is not defined in a positive relation in the rule's body
DRESDEN/ad_game_2x2/VCN6Ww;Validator: ( <= ( bestscoreaccumulator 0 0 0 ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
DRESDEN/clobber/wpU3Iw;Validator: ( movePossible ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/beatmania/OKagtA;Validator: ( <= ( legal player ( play 1 ) ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
DRESDEN/3conn3/JV3xlg;Validator: ( not-filled ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/dobutsushogi/jIjkWA;Validator: The negation ( not ( distinct ?col_from ?col_to ) ) contains a literal ( distinct ?col_from ?col_to ) that is not a sentence. Only a single sentence is allowed inside a negation.
DRESDEN/duplicatestatelarge/rbPS8w;Validator: The negation ( not ( distinct ?dir c3 ) ) contains a literal ( distinct ?dir c3 ) that is not a sentence. Only a single sentence is allowed inside a negation.
DRESDEN/duplicatestatesmall/ZRoHDw;Validator: The negation ( not ( distinct ?dir c3 ) ) contains a literal ( distinct ?dir c3 ) that is not a sentence. Only a single sentence is allowed inside a negation.
DRESDEN/firesheep/aLi38A;Validator: ( sheep_exist ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/numbertictactoe/1Y90gQ;Validator: ( diagonal ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/coopconn4/RFhMFQ;Validator: ( not-filled ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/incredible/4_vJDQ;Validator: ( <= ( legal robot move ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
DRESDEN/gt_attrition/FwMgKQ;Validator: ( gameOver ) is written as a zero-arity function, it should be written as a constant instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/othello-comp2007/FbS6qw;Validator: The negation ( not ( distinct ?black ?red ) ) contains a literal ( distinct ?black ?red ) that is not a sentence. Only a single sentence is allowed inside a negation.
DRESDEN/ruledepthexponential/o_Pr5Q;Validator: ( <= ( legal robot giveup ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
DRESDEN/duplicatestatemedium/RWuLFw;Validator: The negation ( not ( distinct ?dir c3 ) ) contains a literal ( distinct ?dir c3 ) that is not a sentence. Only a single sentence is allowed inside a negation.
DRESDEN/Projet_Tutore1/F6XFMQ;Validator: The keyword does is being used as a function. It should only be used as the name of a sentence.
DRESDEN/gt_centipede/FRYpsA;Validator: ( gameOver ) is written as a zero-arity function, it should be written as a constant instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/asteroidsparallel/Hx771g;Validator: ( <= ( legal ship ( do thrustthrust ) ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
DRESDEN/PEG_3v1_turn/JZ5tDw;Validator: ( captured ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/conn4/9zJwuw;Validator: ( not-filled ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/farmingquandries/gJ3-cg;Validator: ( year_transition ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/mastermind/-3QVjw;Validator: The function with the name set appears with two different arities, 2 and 4
DRESDEN/montyhall/9w_iYw;Validator: The keyword does is being used as a function. It should only be used as the name of a sentence.
DRESDEN/asteroidsserial/7WGpbg;Validator: ( game1overlock ) is written as a zero-arity function, it should be written as a constant instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/Pilgrimage/Qe4sNg;Validator: ( move_conflict ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/mastermind448/miAYiA;Validator: The keyword does is being used as a function. It should only be used as the name of a sentence.
DRESDEN/Qyshinsu/ZhUdgQ;Validator: The sentence with the name base appears with two different arities, 2 and 1.
DRESDEN/dualconnect4/9ogDSA;Validator: ( some_win ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/maze/8BYEIg;Validator: ( <= ( legal robot move ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
DRESDEN/pointgrab_state/sLvCJQ;Validator: ( <= ( legal ?r grab1 ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
DRESDEN/platformjumpers/kqOdCQ;Validator: ( some_pos_achieved ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/vis_pacman3p/ySOUkg;Validator: The next relation should never be in the body of a rule.
DRESDEN/wargame02/z16XSQ;Validator: ( <= ( legal soldier noop ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
DRESDEN/ruledepthlinear/PcIWPw;Validator: ( <= ( legal robot giveup ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
DRESDEN/wargame01/PrPpkw;Validator: ( <= ( legal soldier noop ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
DRESDEN/RobinsonRoulette_no_white_peg/TDUnzQ;Validator: Unsafe rule ( <= ( goal player 100 ) ( not ( true ( outer ?x empty ) ) ) ): Variable ?x is not defined in a positive relation in the rule's body
DRESDEN/blockerserial/f085xw;Validator: ( game1overlock ) is written as a zero-arity function, it should be written as a constant instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/wallmaze/38dZtA;Validator: ( collision ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
DRESDEN/rendezvous_asteroids/6t3CsA;Validator: ( <= ( legal ship1 thrust ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
DRESDEN/othellosuicide/4sIsHw;Validator: The negation ( not ( distinct ?black ?red ) ) contains a literal ( distinct ?black ?red ) that is not a sentence. Only a single sentence is allowed inside a negation.
DRESDEN/walkingman/2zhWjQ;Validator: ( captured ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
STANFORD/pilgrimage/Yc4KGg;Validator: ( move_conflict ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
STANFORD/hamilton/JGwv-A;Validator: ( <= ( base ( score 0 ) ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
STANFORD/chinesecheckers/3YPwkQ;Validator: ( <= ( base ( step 1 ) ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
STANFORD/kono/oLqaXg;Validator: ( <= ( base ( step 1 ) ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
STANFORD/kono/HI7CHA;Validator: ( <= ( base ( step 1 ) ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
STANFORD/multiplehamilton/SiUpTw;Validator: ( <= ( base ( step 1 ) ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
STANFORD/chinesecheckers4/9KJCmw;Validator: ( <= ( base ( step 1 ) ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
STANFORD/farmingquandries/gJ3-cg;Validator: ( year_transition ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
STANFORD/horseshoe/9wr2WA;Validator: ( <= ( base ( step 1 ) ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
STANFORD/tictoctoe/Ra9NmQ;Validator: The input relation should have arity 2 (first argument: the player, second argument: the move)
STANFORD/alquerque/IJjVGg;Validator: ( <= ( base ( step 1 ) ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
STANFORD/tictictoe/9wsyZA;Validator: The input relation should have arity 2 (first argument: the player, second argument: the move)
STANFORD/jointconnectfour/vhU59g;Validator: ( some_win ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
STANFORD/battleofnumbers/J-EIbg;Validator: The negation ( not ( distinct ?count1 ?count2 ) ) contains a literal ( distinct ?count1 ?count2 ) that is not a sentence. Only a single sentence is allowed inside a negation.
STANFORD/firesheep/hYMFGw;Validator: ( sheep_moving ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
STANFORD/dualconnectfour/vhU59g;Validator: ( some_win ) is written as a zero-arity relation, it should be written as a proposition instead. (Try dropping the parentheses.)
STANFORD/dualhamilton/c0r4vw;Validator: ( <= ( base ( step 1 ) ) ) is written as a zero-arity rule, if it's always supposed to be true, it should be written as a relation instead. Otherwise, check your parentheses.
BASE/chess/cX6VBQ;Got goal results of size: 0 when expecting size one. Results were: []
DRESDEN/ggp-course2013_a1/aVbTyw;Got goal results of size: 2 when expecting size one. Results were: [( goal white 0 ), ( goal white 100 )]
DRESDEN/othello-new-horse/ojhmwQ;Got goal results of size: 3 when expecting size one. Results were: [( goal white 50 ), ( goal white 0 ), ( goal white 100 )]
DRESDEN/kriegTTT_5x5/__UVUA;Got goal results of size: 2 when expecting size one. Results were: [( goal xplayer 100 ), ( goal xplayer 0 )]
DRESDEN/nothello/c5f_QQ;Got goal results of size: 3 when expecting size one. Results were: [( goal white 100 ), ( goal white 0 ), ( goal white 50 )]
DRESDEN/Checkers-BreakThrough/kc3Luw;Got goal results of size: 0 when expecting size one. Results were: []
DRESDEN/othello-new/tp5WhA;Got goal results of size: 3 when expecting size one. Results were: [( goal white 50 ), ( goal white 0 ), ( goal white 100 )]
DRESDEN/othello-fourway/0jBQBQ;Got goal results of size: 3 when expecting size one. Results were: [( goal whiterow 50 ), ( goal whiterow 100 ), ( goal whiterow 0 )]
DRESDEN/fighter/q3v34g;Got goal results of size: 0 when expecting size one. Results were: []
DRESDEN/othello-fourway-teamswitch/B30SVA;Got goal results of size: 3 when expecting size one. Results were: [( goal whiterow 100 ), ( goal whiterow 50 ), ( goal whiterow 0 )]
DRESDEN/othello/NHorpw;Got goal results of size: 3 when expecting size one. Results were: [( goal white 0 ), ( goal white 100 ), ( goal white 50 )]
DRESDEN/othellooo/STtDSQ;Got goal results of size: 3 when expecting size one. Results were: [( goal white 0 ), ( goal white 100 ), ( goal white 50 )]
DRESDEN/othello-fourway-teamswitchA/Y08KBQ;Got goal results of size: 3 when expecting size one. Results were: [( goal whiterow 0 ), ( goal whiterow 100 ), ( goal whiterow 50 )]
DRESDEN/othello-fourway-teamswitchB/ye2KBQ;Got goal results of size: 3 when expecting size one. Results were: [( goal whiterow 0 ), ( goal whiterow 100 ), ( goal whiterow 50 )]
DRESDEN/othello2/5wxZ8g;Got goal results of size: 3 when expecting size one. Results were: [( goal white 50 ), ( goal white 100 ), ( goal white 0 )]
BASE/racer4/07wxZA;Invalid goal definitions when 2 or 3 players finish on the same turn
DRESDEN/racer4/t3B5-Q;Invalid goal definitions when 2 or 3 players finish on the same turn
STANFORD/breakthroughsmall/HM0s5w;Capitalization issue: whitewin vs. whiteWin, blackwin vs. blackWin
BASE/snakeAssemblit/sOydSg;Goal definitions don't account for case where snake and assemblit subgames end simultaneously
BASE/racetrackcorridor/k1OQRg;When players reach 'e' simultaneously and the number of walls differs by player, only one player has a defined goal value