(source: blogcu.com)
Assume there is a rabbit and at position (1,1). Moreover, its home is at position (7,7). How can it reach that position ?
Home positon is not fix place.
Real question, I am trying to solve a problem on a book for exersizing c.What algorithm should I apply to find solution?
Should I use linked list to store data?
Data is (1,1), (1,2),..., (3,3) ..., (7,7)
Place marked with black shows wall.
Use A*. It is the classic go-to algorithm for path-finding (that article lists many other algorithms you can consider too).
By using A* you learn an algorithm that you might actually need in your normal programming career later ;)
An example evaluation of a maze similar to that in the question using A*:
There are a bunch of search algorithms you can use. The easiest to implement will be either breadth-first search or depth-first search.
Algorithms like A* are likely to be more efficient but are a little harder to code.
Check out the Wikipedia "Search algorithms" page. It has links to a number of well-known algorithms.
Breadth-first search is always a good one.
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/recipes/mazesolver.aspx
Related
What is the difference between best-first-search and the breadth-first-search ? and which one do we call "BFS" ?
To answer your second question first:
which one do we call "BFS" ?
Typically when we refer to BFS, we are talking Breadth-first Search.
What is the difference between best-first-search and the breadth-first-search
The analogy that I like to consult when comparing such algorithms is robots digging for gold.
Given a hill, our goal is to simply find gold.
Breadth-first search has no prior knowledge of the whereabouts of the gold so the robot simply digs 1 foot deep along the 10-foot strip if it doesn't find any gold, it digs 1 foot deeper.
Best-first search, however, has a built-in metal detector, thus meaning it has prior knowledge. There is, of course, the cost in having a metal detector, and cost in turning it on and seeing which place would be the best to start digging.
Best-first search is informed whereas Breadth-first search is uninformed, as in one has a metal detector and the other doesn't!
Breadth-first search is complete, meaning it'll find a solution if one exists, and given enough resources will find the optimal solution.
Best-first search is also complete provided the heuristic — estimator of the cost/ so the prior knowledge — is admissible — meaning it overestimates the cost of getting to the solution)
I got the BFS image from http://slideplayer.com/slide/9063462/ the Best-first search is my failed attempt at photoshop!
Thats 2 algorithms to search a graph (tree).
Breadth first looks at all elements(nodes) of a certain depth, trying to find a solutuion (searched value or whatever) then continous one level deeper and looks at every node and so on.
Best first looks at the "best" node defined mostly by a heuristic, checks the best subnode of that node and so on.
A* would be an example for heursitic (best first search) and its way faster. But you need a heuristic what you wouldn't need for breadth search.
Creating a heuristic needs some own effort. Breadth first is out of the box.
I'm familiar with most path finding and graph search algorithms, but I'm not sure how I can solve this dynamically and I'm sure I've overlooked something .
Currently, my approach is very static and hard-coded. This is about a single player tetris like game for which I create the AI.
The current and next piece are known, no further. Since the branching factor is pretty wide, I only look at the best 3 states of all possible states for the current piece and then again the best 3 states that are generated with the next piece.
To get a deeper look at the future at depth 3 I generate all states for all possible pieces, get the best and calculate the average for them. This could be continued for further depths and only depend on CPU power.
Since I only take the best 3, then the next best 3 and then only the best to calculate the average, this doesn't seem balanced. I would need something that dynamically selects and expands a certain search node depending on its score and the score of its children..
Do have a more informed search strategy, you can look at
Expecti-Max algorithm, which is a version of Alpha-Beta search for stochastic problems, or
Monte-Carlo Tree Search (or UCT in particular).
I am looking for AI algorithms to connect halls in a simple circuit, which I assumed that could be represented as a tow dimensional matrix which itself lead to a graph problem.
I cant find such algorithms, so I can add an heuristic to.
I am pretty sure that this is a famous AI problem but cant figure out its name,
Hopefully any body can tell me where to find such algorithms and assure me about that assumption of mine about the circuit and its representation as graph is true.
Thanks.
I'm not sure what you mean by "connect halls", but if you are trying to lay out a circuit, maybe searching for "topological planar routing algorithm " will help you in your search.
Also, the following article might give you ideas:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_(electronic_design_automation)
I'm trying to implement Pacman. It works fine, but so far, the ghosts aren't using any pathfinding, but instead just decide randomly on each path junction which path to take. So you can imagine that it isn't really difficult for Pacman to win the game ;)
So I read a little bit about path finding algorithms in Pacman and here on SO I found a really good answer: Pathfinding Algorithm For Pacman
The answers are referring to http://home.comcast.net/~jpittman2/pacman/pacmandossier.html#Chapter%204
This is all fine, but in my implementation of Pacman, there are two Pacmans which are played by two different players. So I wonder how to adapt the pathfinding algorithms, so that the ghosts are not always chasing one player.
Any thoughts on how to modify the algorithm so that the ghosts are more or less equally fair to both players?
I think the easiest strategy is to make each ghost chase the player closest to it. Proximity can be calculated using Manhattan distance (there was a link to it in the pathfinding question) or Euclidean distance or by a path length to the players. The last option means that you will have to compute paths to both players. Try all these options and choose one to your taste.
Also, on a side note. All people answering the pathfinding question didn't mention Dijkstra's algorithm which is even slower than BFS :) but allows to search all shortest paths only once. That is, if you implement A* or BFS and have n ghosts you will make at least n pathfinding queries. With Dijkstra you can do it only once starting from the player. But it all depends. If your game field is too large, Dijkstra is not the best choice. Try, experiment and maybe it'll suit you.
(Haven't looked but) I'm guessing that all the ghost algorithms base their behaviour on the relative positions of the ghost and 'the player' - well, simply have each ghost change its mind about which of the two players it uses as 'the player' in its algorithm, every so often.
Determining what exactly "every so often* means here is going to be a question for playtesting - should it be on a fixed schedule? Vary per ghost? Vary based on the relative proximity of the two players? Randomly - on a uniform / Poisson / other distribution?
There are as you can see many possibilities. Bear in mind that you want to avoid both behaviour which is 'too good' and behaviour which is 'too stupid'...
If you can query the distance and direction to any one Pacman from any one Ghost and also the number of Ghosts (and which Ghosts) are currently chasing any one Pacman, you should be able to make a pretty good and simple AI with some creativity.
I think you keep the pathfinding algorithms described on this web page you mentioned. That will make the game feel more true to the original. The only problem then is to determine how many ghosts chase a particular Pacman. I think this behavior should include scenarios where all of the ghosts are chasing one player. So, an algorithm is needed to determine if 1, 2, 3, or 4 ghosts are chasing a player. The algorithm could be based on the point difference between the players. So, the player in the lead would get chased by more ghosts. The algorithm should probably factor in the number of lives left for the player. So, if the player in the lead has fewer lives, the algorithm should delay increasing the number of ghosts chasing the player in the lead. The frequency of change in the number of ghosts chasing a player should also not happen too often. If a ghost changes the player being chased too much, then the ghost will seem to not really be chasing either. Just like the web page mentioned, getting a good behavior is going to take some experimentation. I think keeping it simple at first is key because sometimes complex looking behavior can be achieved by using a few simple rules. Good luck and I would love to see what you come up with. Please post a link when you get done!
I don't know if this coincides with your notion of "fairness", but I imagine one would like to prevent the case where one player happened to be the closer target to all 4 ghosts and so they end up ganging up on him and following him around, never again to chase the other player. This would be a possible result of the rule to have the ghost always follow the closest player.
You might consider first allocating fairly 2 ghosts to player 1 and 2 other ghosts to player 2, and then have them chase their targets (and reassigning this every so often). Although, if I were a ghost in the real world I wouldn't care if all my friends and I were ganging up on one pacman.
Instead of BFS or Dijkstra, I would use depth first search to depth 3 or 4, using Cartesian distance between your ghost and the Pacman at the leaves of this search tree and picking the value of the best leaf up to the root. For a small lookahead, it would be faster and easier to code compared to BFS and Dijkstra. Depth limited search should give you pretty intelligent behavior for your ghosts, assuming your gameboard does not have spiraling corridors where the number of moves required to escape the spiral is greater than 3 or 4. It also means the running time of the algorithm doesn't increase with larger and larger boards as does BFS and Dijkstra, again assuming you don't have spiraling corridors.
I've read in one of my AI books that popular algorithms (A-Star, Dijkstra) for path-finding in simulation or games is also used to solve the well-known "15-puzzle".
Can anyone give me some pointers on how I would reduce the 15-puzzle to a graph of nodes and edges so that I could apply one of these algorithms?
If I were to treat each node in the graph as a game state then wouldn't that tree become quite large? Or is that just the way to do it?
A good heuristic for A-Star with the 15 puzzle is the number of squares that are in the wrong location. Because you need at least 1 move per square that is out of place, the number of squares out of place is guaranteed to be less than or equal to the number of moves required to solve the puzzle, making it an appropriate heuristic for A-Star.
A quick Google search turns up a couple papers that cover this in some detail: one on Parallel Combinatorial Search, and one on External-Memory Graph Search
General rule of thumb when it comes to algorithmic problems: someone has likely done it before you, and published their findings.
This is an assignment for the 8-puzzle problem talked about using the A* algorithm in some detail, but also fairly straightforward:
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spring09/cos226/assignments/8puzzle.html
The graph theoretic way to solve the problem is to imagine every configuration of the board as a vertex of the graph and then use a breath-first search with pruning based on something like the Manhatten Distance of the board to derive a shortest path from the starting configuration to the solution.
One problem with this approach is that for any n x n board where n > 3 the game space becomes so large that it is not clear how you can efficiently mark the visited vertices. In other words there is no obvious way to assess if the current configuration of the board is identical to one that has previously been discovered through traversing some other path. Another problem is that the graph size grows so quickly with n (it's approximately (n^2)!) that it is just not suitable for a brue-force attack as the number of paths becomes computationally infeasible to traverse.
This paper by Ian Parberry A Real-Time Algorithm for the (n^2 − 1) - Puzzle describes a simple greedy algorithm that iteritively arrives at a solution by completing the first row, then the first column, then the second row... It arrives at a solution almost immediately, however the solution is far from optimal; essentially it solves the problem the way a human would without leveraging any computational muscle.
This problem is closely related to that of solving the Rubik's cube. The graph of all game states it too large to solve by brue force, but there is a fairly simple 7 step method that can be used to solve any cube in about 1 ~ 2 minutes by a dextrous human. This path is of course non-optimal. By learning to recognise patterns that define sequences of moves the speed can be brought down to 17 seconds. However, this feat by Jiri is somewhat superhuman!
The method Parberry describes moves only one tile at a time; one imagines that the algorithm could be made better up by employing Jiri's dexterity and moving multiple tiles at one time. This would not, as Parberry proves, reduce the path length from n^3, but it would reduce the coefficient of the leading term.
Remember that A* will search through the problem space proceeding down the most likely path to goal as defined by your heurestic.
Only in the worst case will it end up having to flood fill the entire problem space, this tends to happen when there is no actual solution to your problem.
Just use the game tree. Remember that a tree is a special form of graph.
In your case the leaves of each node will be the game position after you make one of the moves that is available at the current node.
Here you go http://www.heyes-jones.com/astar.html
Also. be mindful that with the A-Star algorithm, at least, you will need to figure out a admissible heuristic to determine whether a possible next step is closer to the finished route than another step.
For my current experience, on how to solve an 8 puzzle.
it is required to create nodes. keep track of each step taken
and get the manhattan distance from each following steps, taking/going to the one with the shortest distance.
update the nodes, and continue until reaches the goal