1 / 81

Graham Kendall Automated Scheduling, Optimisation and Planning Research Group (ASAP)

Graham Kendall Automated Scheduling, Optimisation and Planning Research Group (ASAP). Contents. Checkers: Why was it considered “beaten”? Two approaches to Checkers Games in ASAP Poker (if time). Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History. 1959. Arthur Samuel started to look at Checkers 2

ostinmannual
Télécharger la présentation

Graham Kendall Automated Scheduling, Optimisation and Planning Research Group (ASAP)

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. Graham KendallAutomated Scheduling, Optimisation and Planning Research Group (ASAP)

  2. Contents • Checkers: Why was it considered “beaten”? • Two approaches to Checkers • Games in ASAP • Poker (if time)

  3. Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History • 1959. Arthur Samuel started to look at Checkers2 • The determination of weights through self-play (a adapted, b remained fixed) • 39 Features • Included look-ahead via mini-max 2 Samuel A. Some studies in machine learning using the game of checkers. IBM J. Res. Develop. 3 (1959), 210-229

  4. Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History • Samuels’s program defeated Robert Nealy, although the victory is surrounded in controversy • Was he state champion? • Did he lose the game or did Samuel win?

  5. Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : Just about to make move 16 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  6. Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 Forced Jump 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  7. Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  8. Strong (Try to keep) Trapped Only advance to Square 28 Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  9. Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  10. Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  11. Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History • This was a very poor move. • It allowed Samual to retain his “Triangle of Oreo” • AND.. By moving his checker from 19 to 24 it guaranteed Samuel a King • This questioned how strong a player Nealy really was

  12. K 23 Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  13. K 23 Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  14. 16-12 then 5-1, Chinook said would be a draw K 23 Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  15. K 23 Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  16. K 23 Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  17. K 23 Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  18. K 23 Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  19. K 23 Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  20. K Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 This checker is lost 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  21. K Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  22. K K Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 This checker could run (to 10) but.. 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  23. K K Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  24. K K Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  25. K K Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 Forced Jump 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  26. K K Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  27. K K Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  28. Victory K Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History Red (Samuel’s Program) : After Move 25 1 2 4 3 5 6 8 7 11 9 10 12 15 16 14 13 17 18 19 20 23 24 21 22 25 28 26 27 29 30 31 32 White (Nealey)

  29. Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History • Two Mistakes by Nealy • Allowing Samuel to get a King • Playing a move that led to defeat when there was a draw available

  30. Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History • The next year a six match rematch was won by Nealy 5-1. • Three years later (1966) the two world championship challengers (Walter Hellman and Derek Oldbury) played four games each against Samuel’s program. They won every game.

  31. Computers & Game Playing : A Potted History • Checkers • Chinook • Blondie 24 (aka Anaconda)

  32. Types of Games • Perfect • Each Player has complete knowledge of the game state • Usually only two players, who take alternate turns • Examples include Chess, Checkers, Awari, Connect-Four, Go, Othello

  33. Types of Games • Imperfect • Some of the game state is hidden • Examples include Poker, Cribbage, Bridge

  34. Types of Games • Games with an element of chance • The game moves have some stochastic element • For example, Backgammon

  35. Types of Games 6 Jaap van den Herik H., Uiterwijk and van Rijswijck J. Games Solved: Now and in the future. Artificial Intelligence 134 (2002) 277-311

  36. Case Study 1: Checkers • Samuel’s work, perhaps, restricted the research into Checkers until 1989 when Jonathan Schaeffer began working on Chinook • He had two aims • To develop the worlds best checkers player • To “solve” the game of checkers

  37. Case Study 1: Checkers • Chinook, at its heart, had an evaluation function • Piece count (+30% for a King) • Runaway checker • “Dog Hole” • The weights were hand-tuned

  38. Case Study 1: Checkers • Opening game database from published work (with corrections they found) • Initially 4000 openings, leading to an eventual 40,000 • “Cooks” – innovative lines of play that could surprise an opponent • The aim was to take opponents into unknown territory

  39. Case Study 1: Checkers • Endgame database: Started writing in May 1989 • The 8-piece endgame database finished on February 20th 1994

  40. Case Study 1: Checkers

  41. Case Study 1: Checkers

  42. Case Study 1: Checkers

  43. Case Study 1: Checkers • With a 4-piece database Chinook won the 1989 Computer Olympiad • In the 1990 US National Checkers Championship Chinook was using a 6-piece database. • It came second, to Marion Tinsley, defeating Don Lafferty on the way who was regarded at the worlds second best player.

  44. Case Study 1: Checkers • Marion Tinsley • Held the world championship from 1951 to 1994 • Before playing Chinook, Tinsley only lost 4 competitive games (no matches)

  45. Case Study 1: Checkers • The winner of the US Championship has the right to play for the world championship. Finishing second (with Tinsley first) entitled Chinook to play for the world championship • The American Checkers Federation (ACF) and the European Draughts Association (ADF) refused to let a machine compete for the title.

  46. Case Study 1: Checkers • In protest, Tinsley resigned • The ACF and EDF, created a new world championship, “man versus machine” and named Tinsley as the world champion. • At this time Tinsley was rated at 2812, Chinook was rated at 2706

  47. Case Study 1: Checkers • The match took place 17-29 Aug 1992. • The $300,000 computer used in the tournament ran at about half the speed of a 1GHz PC • The match finished 4-2 in favour of Tinsley (with 34 draws)

  48. Case Study 1: Checkers • A 32 game rematch was held in 1994 • 8-piece end game • Processors four times as fast (resulted in a factor of 2 speed up due to more complex evaluation function and the overhead of parallel processing) • Opening book of 40,000 moves • In preparation Chinook no losses in 94 games against Grandmasters

  49. Case Study 1: Checkers • Six games in (1-1, with 4 draws) Tinsley resigned for health reasons. His symptoms were later diagnosed as pancreatic cancer. • Tinsley died on 3rd April 1995 (aged 68). Undoubtedly the best player ever to have lived • Chinook was crowned the man versus machine champion. The first automated game player to have achieved this. • A 20-match with Don Lafferty resulted in a draw (1-1, with 18 draws)

  50. Case Study 1: Checkers …defeating the world who had held the title for 40 years Opening Game Database (40,000) moves Hand Crafted Evaluation Function (a/b search) Schaeffer J. One Jump Ahead: Challenging Human Supremacy in checkers, Springer, 1997 Won the World (Man Versus Machine) Championship in 1994… Marion Tinsley lost his 5th, 6th and 7th games to Chinook End Game Database (8-pieces)

More Related