CMSC 463 Chapter 5: Game Playing Prof. Adam Anthony.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
CMSC 471 Spring 2014 Class #9 Tue 2/25/14 Game Playing Professor Marie desJardins,
Advertisements

Game Playing CS 63 Chapter 6
Adversarial Search Chapter 6 Section 1 – 4. Types of Games.
Adversarial Search We have experience in search where we assume that we are the only intelligent being and we have explicit control over the “world”. Lets.
Games & Adversarial Search Chapter 5. Games vs. search problems "Unpredictable" opponent  specifying a move for every possible opponent’s reply. Time.
Adversarial Search Aka Games
February 7, 2006AI: Chapter 6: Adversarial Search1 Artificial Intelligence Chapter 6: Adversarial Search Michael Scherger Department of Computer Science.
Games & Adversarial Search
CMSC 671 Fall 2001 Class #8 – Thursday, September 27.
ICS-271:Notes 6: 1 Notes 6: Game-Playing ICS 271 Fall 2008.
CSC 8520 Spring Paula Matuszek CS 8520: Artificial Intelligence Solving Problems by Searching Paula Matuszek Spring, 2010 Slides based on Hwee Tou.
CS 484 – Artificial Intelligence
Adversarial Search Chapter 6 Section 1 – 4.
University College Cork (Ireland) Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Course: Engineering Artificial Intelligence Dr. Radu Marinescu Lecture.
Adversarial Search Chapter 5.
Adversarial Search: Game Playing Reading: Chapter next time.
Adversarial Search CSE 473 University of Washington.
MINIMAX SEARCH AND ALPHA- BETA PRUNING: PLAYER 1 VS. PLAYER 2.
Games CPSC 386 Artificial Intelligence Ellen Walker Hiram College.
This time: Outline Game playing The minimax algorithm
Lecture 02 – Part C Game Playing: Adversarial Search
Game Playing CSC361 AI CSC361: Game Playing.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA Department of Computer Science and Engineering CSCE 580 Artificial Intelligence Ch.6: Adversarial Search Fall 2008 Marco Valtorta.
ICS-271:Notes 6: 1 Notes 6: Game-Playing ICS 271 Fall 2006.
Games & Adversarial Search Chapter 6 Section 1 – 4.
Game Playing: Adversarial Search Chapter 6. Why study games Fun Clear criteria for success Interesting, hard problems which require minimal “initial structure”
Game Playing State-of-the-Art  Checkers: Chinook ended 40-year-reign of human world champion Marion Tinsley in Used an endgame database defining.
1 Adversary Search Ref: Chapter 5. 2 Games & A.I. Easy to measure success Easy to represent states Small number of operators Comparison against humans.
CSC 412: AI Adversarial Search
CHAPTER 6 : ADVERSARIAL SEARCH
PSU CS 370 – Introduction to Artificial Intelligence Game MinMax Alpha-Beta.
Game Playing Chapter 5. Game playing §Search applied to a problem against an adversary l some actions are not under the control of the problem-solver.
Lecture 6: Game Playing Heshaam Faili University of Tehran Two-player games Minmax search algorithm Alpha-Beta pruning Games with chance.
AD FOR GAMES Lecture 4. M INIMAX AND A LPHA -B ETA R EDUCTION Borrows from Spring 2006 CS 440 Lecture Slides.
Game-playing AIs Part 1 CIS 391 Fall CSE Intro to AI 2 Games: Outline of Unit Part I (this set of slides)  Motivation  Game Trees  Evaluation.
Adversarial Search Chapter 6 Section 1 – 4. Outline Optimal decisions α-β pruning Imperfect, real-time decisions.
Notes on Game Playing by Yun Peng of theYun Peng University of Maryland Baltimore County.
Introduction to Artificial Intelligence CS 438 Spring 2008 Today –AIMA, Ch. 6 –Adversarial Search Thursday –AIMA, Ch. 6 –More Adversarial Search The “Luke.
Games. Adversaries Consider the process of reasoning when an adversary is trying to defeat our efforts In game playing situations one searches down the.
Games 1 Alpha-Beta Example [-∞, +∞] Range of possible values Do DF-search until first leaf.
Adversarial Search Chapter 6 Section 1 – 4. Search in an Adversarial Environment Iterative deepening and A* useful for single-agent search problems What.
CMSC 100 Heuristic Search and Game Playing Professor Marie desJardins Tuesday, November 13, 2012 Thu 10/25/12 1 E-Commerce and Databases.
Instructor: Eyal Amir Grad TAs: Wen Pu, Yonatan Bisk Undergrad TAs: Sam Johnson, Nikhil Johri CS 440 / ECE 448 Introduction to Artificial Intelligence.
Paula Matuszek, CSC 8520, Fall Based in part on aima.eecs.berkeley.edu/slides-ppt 1 CS 8520: Artificial Intelligence Adversarial Search Paula Matuszek.
Game tree search Chapter 6 (6.1 to 6.3 and 6.6) cover games. 6.6 covers state of the art game players in particular. 6.5 covers games that involve uncertainty.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (CS 461D) Princess Nora University Faculty of Computer & Information Systems.
Game-playing AIs Part 2 CIS 391 Fall CSE Intro to AI 2 Games: Outline of Unit Part II  The Minimax Rule  Alpha-Beta Pruning  Game-playing.
Game Playing Chapter 6 Some material adopted from notes by Charles R. Dyer, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
CMSC 421: Intro to Artificial Intelligence October 6, 2003 Lecture 7: Games Professor: Bonnie J. Dorr TA: Nate Waisbrot.
Game Playing: Adversarial Search chapter 5. Game Playing: Adversarial Search  Introduction  So far, in problem solving, single agent search  The machine.
Game Playing: Adversarial Search Chapter 6. Why study games Fun Clear criteria for success Offer an opportunity to study problems involving {hostile,
Adversarial Search and Game Playing Russell and Norvig: Chapter 6 Slides adapted from: robotics.stanford.edu/~latombe/cs121/2004/home.htm Prof: Dekang.
Explorations in Artificial Intelligence Prof. Carla P. Gomes Module 5 Adversarial Search (Thanks Meinolf Sellman!)
Adversarial Search and Game Playing. Topics Game playing Game trees Minimax Alpha-beta pruning Examples.
ADVERSARIAL SEARCH Chapter 6 Section 1 – 4. OUTLINE Optimal decisions α-β pruning Imperfect, real-time decisions.
1 Chapter 6 Game Playing. 2 Chapter 6 Contents l Game Trees l Assumptions l Static evaluation functions l Searching game trees l Minimax l Bounded lookahead.
Adversarial Search Aka Games
PENGANTAR INTELIJENSIA BUATAN (64A614)
Adversarial Search and Game Playing (Where making good decisions requires respecting your opponent) R&N: Chap. 6.
Adversarial Search Chapter 5.
Games & Adversarial Search
Adversarial Search.
CMSC 471 Fall 2011 Class #8-9 Tue 9/27/11 – Thu 9/29/11 Game Playing
Game Playing: Adversarial Search
CMSC 671 Fall 2010 Tue 9/21/10 Game Playing
Game Playing: Adversarial Search
Game Playing Chapter 5.
Games & Adversarial Search
Presentation transcript:

CMSC 463 Chapter 5: Game Playing Prof. Adam Anthony

Today’s class Game playing –State of the art and resources –Framework Game trees –Minimax –Alpha-beta pruning –Adding randomness

Game Playing Chapter 5 Some material adopted from notes by Marie desJardins of University of Maryland Baltimore County and Charles R. Dyer, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Why study games? Clear criteria for success Offer an opportunity to study problems involving {hostile, adversarial, competing} agents. Historical reasons Fun Interesting, hard problems which require minimal “initial structure” Games often define very large search spaces –chess nodes in search tree, legal states

State of the art How good are computer game players? –Chess: Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov in 1997 Garry Kasparav vs. Deep Junior (Feb 2003): tie! Kasparov vs. X3D Fritz (November 2003): tie! –Checkers: Chinook (an AI program with a very large endgame database) is(?) the world champion. –Go: Computer players are decent, at best –Bridge: “Expert-level” computer players exist (but no world champions yet!) Good places to learn more: – –

Chinook Chinook is the World Man-Machine Checkers Champion, developed by researchers at the University of Alberta. It earned this title by competing in human tournaments, winning the right to play for the (human) world championship, and eventually defeating the best players in the world. Visit to play a version of Chinook over the Internet. The developers claim to have fully analyzed the game of checkers, and can provably always win if they play black “One Jump Ahead: Challenging Human Supremacy in Checkers” Jonathan Schaeffer, University of Alberta (496 pages, Springer. $34.95, 1998).

Ratings of human and computer chess champions

Typical case 2-person game Players alternate moves Zero-sum: one player’s loss is the other’s gain Perfect information: both players have access to complete information about the state of the game. No information is hidden from either player. No chance (e.g., using dice) involved Examples: Tic-Tac-Toe, Checkers, Chess, Go, Nim, Othello Not: Bridge, Solitaire, Backgammon,...

How to play a game A way to play such a game is to: –Consider all the legal moves you can make –Compute the new position resulting from each move –Evaluate each resulting position and determine which is best –Make that move –Wait for your opponent to move and repeat Key problems are: –Representing the “board” –Generating all legal next boards –Evaluating a position

Evaluation function Evaluation function or static evaluator is used to evaluate the “goodness” of a game position. –Contrast with heuristic search where the evaluation function was a non-negative estimate of the cost from the start node to a goal and passing through the given node The zero-sum assumption allows us to use a single evaluation function to describe the goodness of a board with respect to both players. –f(n) >> 0: position n good for me and bad for you –f(n) << 0: position n bad for me and good for you –f(n) near 0: position n is a neutral position –f(n) = +infinity: win for me –f(n) = -infinity: win for you

Evaluation function examples Example of an evaluation function for Tic-Tac-Toe: f(n) = [# of 3-lengths open for me] - [# of 3-lengths open for you] where a 3-length is a complete row, column, or diagonal Alan Turing’s function for chess –f(n) = w(n)/b(n) where w(n) = sum of the point value of white’s pieces and b(n) = sum of black’s Most evaluation functions are specified as a weighted sum of position features: f(n) = w 1 *feat 1 (n) + w 2 *feat 2 (n) w n *feat k (n) Example features for chess are piece count, piece placement, squares controlled, etc. Deep Blue had over 8000 features in its evaluation function

Game trees Problem spaces for typical games are represented as trees Root node represents the current board configuration; player must decide the best single move to make next Static evaluator function rates a board position. f(board) = real number with f>0 “white” (me), f<0 for black (you) Arcs represent the possible legal moves for a player If it is my turn to move, then the root is labeled a "MAX" node; otherwise it is labeled a "MIN" node, indicating my opponent's turn. Each level of the tree has nodes that are all MAX or all MIN; nodes at level i are of the opposite kind from those at level i+1

Minimax procedure Create start node as a MAX node with current board configuration Expand nodes down to some depth (a.k.a. ply) of lookahead in the game Apply the evaluation function at each of the leaf nodes “Back up” values for each of the non-leaf nodes until a value is computed for the root node –At MIN nodes, the backed-up value is the minimum of the values associated with its children. –At MAX nodes, the backed-up value is the maximum of the values associated with its children. Pick the operator associated with the child node whose backed-up value determined the value at the root

Minimax Algorithm MAX MIN This is the move selected by minimax Static evaluator value

Example: Nim In Nim, there are a certain number of objects (coins, sticks, etc.) on the table -- we’ll play 5-coin Nim Each player in turn has to pick up either one or two objects Whoever picks up the last object loses Who wants to play?

Partial Game Tree for Tic-Tac-Toe f(n) = +1 if the position is a win for X. f(n) = -1 if the position is a win for O. f(n) = 0 if the position is a draw.

Minimax Tree MAX node MIN node f value value computed by minimax

Alpha-beta pruning We can improve on the performance of the minimax algorithm through alpha-beta pruning Basic idea: “If you have an idea that is surely bad, don't take the time to see how truly awful it is.” -- Pat Winston 271 =2 >=2 <=1 ? We don’t need to compute the value at this node. No matter what it is, it can’t affect the value of the root node. MAX MIN

Alpha-beta pruning Traverse the search tree in depth-first order Keep track of two running totals: –alpha(n) = Best choice (maximum value) found so far at node n for max –Beta(n) = Best choice (minimum value) found so far for at node n for min –Note: The alpha values start at -infinity and only increase, while beta values start at +infinity and only decrease. Beta cutoff: Given a MAX node n, cut off the search below n (i.e., don’t generate or examine any more of n’s children) if alpha(n) >= beta(i) for some MIN node ancestor (ABOVE) of n. Alpha cutoff: stop searching below MIN node n if beta(n) <= alpha(i) for some MAX node ancestor (ABOVE) of n.

Alpha-beta example MIN MAX prune prune

Alpha-beta algorithm function MAX-VALUE (state, α, β) ;; α = best MAX found ABOVE this point; ;; β = best MIN found ABOVE this point if TERMINAL-TEST (state) then return UTILITY(state) v := -∞ for each s in SUCCESSORS (state) do v := MAX (v, MIN-VALUE (s, α, β)) if v >= β then return v this node α := MAX (α, v) end return v function MIN-VALUE (state, α, β) if TERMINAL-TEST (state) then return UTILITY(state) v := ∞ for each s in SUCCESSORS (state) do v := MIN (v, MAX-VALUE (s, α, β)) if v <= α then return v β := MIN (β, v) end return v

Effectiveness of alpha-beta Alpha-beta is guaranteed to compute the same value for the root node as computed by minimax, with less or equal computation Worst case: no pruning, examining b d leaf nodes, where each node has b children and a d-ply search is performed Best case: examine only (2b) d/2 leaf nodes. –Result is you can search twice as deep as minimax! Best case is when each player’s best move is the first alternative generated In Deep Blue, they found empirically that alpha-beta pruning meant that the average branching factor at each node was about 6 instead of about 35!

Games of chance Backgammon is a two-player game with uncertainty. Players roll dice to determine what moves to make. White has just rolled 5 and 6 and has four legal moves: 5-10, , , , Such games are good for exploring decision making in adversarial problems involving skill and luck.

Game trees with chance nodes Chance nodes (shown as circles) represent random events For a random event with N outcomes, each chance node has N distinct children; a probability is associated with each (For 2 dice, there are 21 distinct outcomes) Use minimax to compute values for MAX and MIN nodes Use expected values for chance nodes For chance nodes over a max node, as in C: expectimax(C) = ∑ i (P(d i ) * maxvalue(i)) For chance nodes over a min node: expectimin(C) = ∑ i (P(d i ) * minvalue(i)) Max Rolls Min Rolls Root includes initial roll value with probability 1 (need 21 trees to represent full game).

Meaning of the evaluation function Dealing with probabilities and expected values means we have to be careful about the “meaning” of values returned by the static evaluator. Note that a “relative-order preserving” change of the values would not change the decision of minimax, but could change the decision with chance nodes. Linear transformations are OK A1 is best move A2 is best move 2 outcomes with prob {.9,.1}