Re: Computer version of Risk
FIRST OF ALL:
I feel pretty stupid arguing with a pro, but since it's turning out to be
really interesting...
> It kept track of every move of every piece then analyzed the board after
> each move. It would ask each piece what it now could do or not, then
Ok. I think the comment is a bit odd... "Ask each piece"? Is this any
different from listing of all possible moves? Is the "valuation" for these=
moves "deep" or shallow (no tree)?
> prioritize each possibility then advise the player of his options now.
Sift though the tree for highlights. Ok.
> The player could view every move for every piece and it would tell the
> advantages and disadvantages of every move. Tactically, how did the
Whoa. Hold it. Now we've got a hardcoded tactics expert scoping out the tr=
ee.
Is it a new-and-improved valuation function? It observes regions, position=
s,
complementing/canceling "threat bubbles", trades, and maybe some other
contructs too? Oh, yeah, It's real adaptive too? It sees all kinds kinky s=
tuff?
(Am I looking in the right direction?)
> players situation change as a result of that move?
Same evaluation for resulting board. Ok.
> You miss the beauty of chess here. It's not winning the game, it's HOW
(How?! Wow, I'll have to meditate on that one. I can relate to the beauty-=
thing,
but I can't connect it to chess...)
> you do it. It ceases to be AI if it's just going for points. There are
Yes. It will fail a Turing-test. (Unlike IBMs code/machine)
> brilliant strategies that take 20 moves to accomplish, those 20 moves ma=
y
> not be the "optimal" point wise, but they win the game faster than the
> point wise moves.
The freaky part about max-min, is that it *will* choose the niftier strate=
gy,
*if it sees it*, that is, searches deep enough. Is your emphasis on playin=
g
like the humans (suckers!) or giving a hard fight? I don't a lot about che=
ss,
but I figure there's got to be about as many brilliant strategies as there=
are
players right? (In addition to which, they too, count a mind-warping numbe=
r of
moves ahead...) How do you make the computer use one of them? Some kind of=
hardcoding? When do you abandon a master-plan like that?
As for playing like a human, well, I have a real problem with believing th=
at
any chess-player is really human... ?
> I'm not talking about a random-factor that every once in awhile does
> something different for the hell of it! I'm talking about a deliberate,
> calculated action that is in the character's game plan that may or not b=
e
> in his best interest. We all try something stupid when we play,
> sometimes it pays off bigtime, sometimes we look really stupid.
Hmm, yeah. I wrote the original post because I felt that what you were
describing (in terms of algorithm) was total free-hand spaghetti. It's oka=
y to
make spaghetti, but you should know what you're doing, otherwise it will b=
e
*just* that, and nothing more... My point is to first write a shake-and-ba=
ke
by-the-book algorithm, and try to get it bent later... (If at all)
> Pretty much. Teach the computer player how to play, then what you do wh=
en
> you play and tell it how you choose your move based on whatever info is
> required, then let it play. As you play against it, you adjust the "how
> you choose" part until it plays better than you, then get other people t=
o
> play against it and get feedback.
By maximizing score, I mean the kind awarded by the AI-valuation, not the =
game
rules, and they may be very different... (So our views on the resulting mo=
ves
aren't all that different. It's your attitude on the code I really have a =
beef
with...) If the computer beats me, and gives me some attitude doing it, it=
's
Ok. But giving me attitude and getting stepped on is *really* *losing*.
> > Example to prove what?
> > (All I see is the results of a too simplistic view on AI)
>
> Turn and shoot is the "optimal" way to win, but not the best way.
> Your method is go for the points, you kill by pointing at the target and
> shooting, not by flying into formation in your enemy's sights for awhile=
,
> taking hits then sacrificing 1/3 of your attack force to give the others=
a
> possible better shot at the target.
You're assuming that the AI is /very/ short sighted! This is not neccesari=
ly
so. max-min will happily sacrifice anything, if it sees the gain. (this is=
the
hard part though)
> > Like this isn't voodoo...! "Learn". Yeah, sure boss, we'll put that in=
before
> > lunch...
>
> It ain't voodoo. It's keeping track of what you are doing, what you do
(If you've know how it works, it is never voodoo, that's, like, the
definition...)
> often, and choosing another route based on that info. It's the same
> stuff. If I play 10 games against you and in every game you go for afri=
ca
> with reckless abandon and leave other things helpless, I will try and
> capitalize on that weakness in your strategy. It's just tables. It's
> just telling the computer player something, and what to do with that
> something he knows.
Yeah. And what do you watch for? How subtile does it get? Going for africa=
every time is a bit big... ?
> If I know that as soon as one ship breaks formation you follow it most o=
f
> the time I will look to see if you do it this time and have the other
> ships do something different in response. In practice it's more like on=
e
> ship tells the others that it's being followed and the others try and
> sneak up from behind. If I know a particular strategy isn't effective
> against you, I'll try something different. Go to plan B.
And keep a hardwired set of plans/strategies. Doesn't sound very bright to=
me... If it is really intelligent, it surprises it's creator. And that wou=
ld
IMHO definately requires some voodoo...
> > The max-min would prolly keep its playing style, but controlling depth=
and
> > random-factor it would probably still be tricky to beat...
>
> I'm sure it would be, but is it "smart?" Would it be like playing again=
st
> a real person?
Do we want to play against a human we *know* we can beat? Seriously, I hav=
e a
hard time accepting human traits as "smart". The sharper the players, the =
less
quirks, preconceptions, superstitions, habits, whatever... I would think t=
hat
at a lower difficulty, the AI should have more "personality", and less hig=
her
up...
> > (Oh yeah: And be careful with equal signs around here...)
> why?
Some mailer or some server somwhere is puking out "=3D3D"... Pretty #&$=A4=
% random!
So equal signs get filtered out by eyeballs when reading...
> Michael Packard
Anders
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Eurenius <c96aes at cs.umu.se> ICQ UIN:1453793
Computer Science/Engineering student at the university of Umeaa
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
