1 / 27

Game Playing

Game Playing. Introduction to Artificial Intelligence CS440/ECE448 Lecture 7 FIRST HOMEWORK DUE TODAY. Last lecture. Constraint satisfaction problems Line-drawing interpretation This lecture Games Minimax  pruning Reading Chapter 6. Line Drawing Interpretation.

heath
Télécharger la présentation

Game Playing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Game Playing Introduction to Artificial Intelligence CS440/ECE448 Lecture 7 FIRST HOMEWORK DUE TODAY

  2. Last lecture • Constraint satisfaction problems • Line-drawing interpretation This lecture Games • Minimax •  pruning Reading • Chapter 6

  3. Line Drawing Interpretation • Goal: Given a line drawing of a 3-D object, label edges as being Convex: + Concave: - Occluding: + -

  4. Constraints (Junction Labels) Complete junction catalog for line drawings of trihedral-vertex polyhedra

  5. Nonsense objects • A consistent labeling is a necessary condition for a line drawing to correspond to a physically realizable object (e.g. a polyhedron with trihedral vertices)

  6. Types of Games Chance Deterministic Perfect Information Imperfect Information

  7. Games vs. search problems • “Unpredictable” opponent  solution is a contingency plan. • Time limits  unlikely to find goal, must approximate. • Plan of attack: • algorithm for perfect play [Von Neumann, 1944]; • finite horizon, approximate evaluation [Zuse, 1945; Shannon, 1950; Samuel, 1952-57]; • pruning to reduce costs [McCarthy, 1956].

  8. Deterministic Two-person Games • Two players move in turn. • Each Player knows what the other has done and can do. • Either one of the players wins (and the other loses) or there is a draw.

  9. Games as Search: Grundy’s Game [Nilsson, Chapter 3] • Initially a stack of pennies stands between two players. • Each player divides one of the current stacks into two unequal stacks. • The game ends when every stack contains one or two pennies. • The first player who cannot play loses. • Min starts. Can we devise a winning strategy for Max? MAX MIN

  10. 6, 1 5, 2 4, 3 Max’s turn Min’s turn 3, 2, 2 5, 1, 1 4, 2, 1 3, 3, 1 4, 1, 1, 1 3, 2, 1, 1 2, 2, 2, 1 Max’s turn MAX Loses 3, 1, 1, 1, 1 2, 2, 1, 1, 1 Min’s turn Min Loses 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 Max’s turn MAX Loses Grundy’s Game: States Min’s turn 7

  11. When is there a winning strategy for Max? • When it is MIN’s turn to play, a win must be obtainable for MAX from all the results of the move. • When it is MAX’s turn, a win must be obtainable from at least one of the results of the move.

  12. Minimax • Initial state: Board position and whose turn it is. • Operators: Legal moves that the player can make. • Terminal test: A test of the state to determine if game is over; set of states satisfying terminal test are terminal states. • Utility function:numeric value for outcome of game (leaf nodes). • E.g. +1 win, -1 loss, 0 draw. • E.g. # of points scored if tallying points as in backgammon. • Assumption: Opponent will always chose operator (move) to maximize own utility.

  13. Minimax • Perfect play for deterministic, perfect-information games. • Max’s strategy: choose action with highest minimax value ) best achievable payoff against best play by min. • Consider a 2-ply (two step) game: Max want’s largest outcome --- Min want’s smallest.

  14. Properties of Minimax Yes, if tree is finite. Yes, against an optimal opponent. Otherwise?? O(bm). O(bm). • Complete: • Optimal: • Time complexity: • Space complexity: Note: For chess, b  35, m  100 for a “reasonable game.” • Solution is completely infeasible Actually only 1040 board positions, not 35100

  15. Resource limits Suppose we have 100 seconds, explore 104 nodes/second  106 nodes per move. Standard approach: • cutoff test e.g., depth limit, • evaluation function = estimated desirability of position (an approximation to the utility used in minimax).

  16. Cutting off search • Replace MinimaxValue with MinimaxCutoff . • MinimaxCutoff is identical to MinimaxValue except 1. Terminal? is replaced by Cutoff? 2. Utility is replaced by Eval. Does it work in practice? bm= 106, b=35  m=4 4-ply lookahead is a hopeless chess player! 4-ply human novice 8-ply typical PC, human master 12-ply Deep Blue, Kasparov

  17. Evaluation Function For chess, typically linear weighted sum of features Eval(s) = w1 f1(s) + w2 f2(s) + ... + wn fn(s) e.g., w1 = 9 with f1(s) = (number of white queens) - (number of black queens) w2 = 5 with f2(s) = (number of white rooks) - (number of black rooks)

  18. Digression: Exact Values Don't Matter MAX MIN • Behavior is preserved under any monotonic transformation of Eval. • Only the order matters: payoff in deterministic games acts as an ordinal utility function.

  19. Horizon effect Bad news may be hidden beyond the cutoff depth. Black to move..

  20. Another idea •  Pruning • Essential idea is to stop searching down a branch of tree when you can determine that it is a dead end.

  21. =3 =2  2  14  5 X X 14 2 5 2  Pruning Example  3 MAX =3 MIN 12 8 3

  22. How is the search tree pruned? •  is the best value (to MAX) found so far. • If V, then the subtree containing V will have utility no greater than V.  Prune that branch •  can be defined similarly from MIN’s perspective.

  23. Properties of  Pruning does not affect final result. Good move ordering improves effectiveness of pruning. With “perfect ordering”, time complexity = O(bm/2): • doubles depth of search; • can easily reach depth 8 and play good chess. A simple example of the value of reasoning about which computations are relevant (a form of metareasoning).

  24. Deterministic games in practice Checkers: In 1994 Chinookended 40-year-reign of human world champion Marion Tinsley. Used an endgame database defining perfect play for all positions involving 8 or fewer pieces on the board, a total of 443,748,401,247 positions. Chess:Deep Blue defeated human world champion Gary Kasparov in a six-game match in 1997. Deep Blue searches 200 million positions per second, uses very sophisticated evaluation, and undisclosed methods for extending some lines of search up to 40 ply. Othello: Human champions refuse to compete against computers, who are too good. Go: Human champions refuse to compete against computers, who are too bad. In Go, b > 300, so most programs use pattern knowledge bases to suggest plausible moves.

More Related