'Proximity' is a strategy game of territorial domination similar to Othello, Go and Risk.
Two players, uses a 10x12 hex grid. Game invented by Brian Cable in 2007.
Seems to be a worthy game for discussing a) optimal algorithm then b) how to build an AI.
Strategies are going to be probabilistic or heuristic-based, due to the randomness factor, and the insane branching factor (20^120).
So it will be kind of hard to compare objectively.
A compute time limit of 5 seconds max per turn seems reasonable => this rules out all brute-force attempts. (Play the game's AI on Expert level to get a feel - it does a very good job based on some simple heuristic)
Game: Flash version here, iPhone version iProximity here and many copies elsewhere on the web
Rules: here
Object: to have control of the most armies after all tiles have been placed. You start with an empty hexboard. Each turn you receive a randomly numbered tile (value between 1 and 20 armies) to place on any vacant board space. If this tile is adjacent to any ALLY tiles, it will strengthen each of those tile's defenses +1 (up to a max value of 20). If it is adjacent to any ENEMY tiles, it will take control over them IF its number is higher than the number on the enemy tile.
Thoughts on strategy: Here are some initial thoughts; setting the computer AI to Expert will probably teach a lot:
minimizing your perimeter seems to be a good strategy, to prevent flips and minimize worst-case damage
like in Go, leaving holes inside your formation is lethal, only more so with the hex grid because you can lose armies on up to 6 squares in one move
low-numbered tiles are a liability, so place them away from your main territory, near the board edges and scattered. You can also use low-numbered tiles to plug holes in your formation, or make small gains along the perimeter which the opponent will not tend to bother attacking.
a triangle formation of three pieces is strong since they mutually reinforce, and also reduce the perimeter
Each tile can be flipped at most 6 times, i.e. when its neighbor tiles are occupied. Control of a formation can flow back and forth. Sometimes you lose part of a formation and plug any holes to render that part of the board 'dead' and lock in your territory/ prevent further losses.
Low-numbered tiles are obvious-but-low-valued liabilities, but high-numbered tiles can be bigger liabilities if they get flipped (which is harder). One lucky play with a 20-army tile can cause a swing of 200 (from +100 to -100 armies). So tile placement will have both offensive and defensive considerations.
Comment 1,2,4 seem to resemble a minimax strategy where we minimize the maximum expected possible loss (modified by some probabilistic consideration of the value ß the opponent can get from 1..20 i.e. a structure which can only be flipped by a ß=20 tile is 'nearly impregnable'.)
I'm not clear what the implications of comments 3,5,6 are for optimal strategy.
Interested in comments from Go, Chess or Othello players.
(The sequel ProximityHD for XBox Live, allows 4-player -cooperative or -competitive local multiplayer increases the branching factor since you now have 5 tiles in your hand at any given time, of which you can only play one. Reinforcement of ally tiles is increased to +2 per ally.)
A former member of the U of A GAMES group here.
That branching factor is insane. Far worse than Go.
Basically, you're hooped.
The problem with this game is that it is not deterministic due to the selection of a random tile. This actually adds another layer of nodes between each existing layer of nodes in the tree. You'll be interested in my publications on *-Minimax to learn about techniques for searching in stochastic domains.
In order to complete one-ply searches before the end of this century, you're going to need some very aggressive forward pruning techniques. Throw provably best move out the window early and concentrate on building good move ordering.
For general algorithms, I would suggest you to check the research done by the Alberta University AI Games group: http://games.cs.ualberta.ca Many of the algorithms there guarantee to find optimal policies. However, I doubt you're really interested in finding the optimal, aim for the "good enough" unless you want to sell that game in Korea :D
From your description, I have understood the game to be a two-player with full-observability i.e. no hidden units and such and fully deterministic i.e. player's actions outcomes do not require rolling, then you should take a look at the real-time bounded-search minimax derivatives proposed by the U Alberta guys. However, being able to do bound as well the depth of the backups of the value function would perhaps be a nice way to add a "difficulty level" to your game. They have been doing some work - a bit fishy imo - on sampling the search space for improving value function estimates.
About the "strategy" section you describe: in the framework I am mentioning, you will have to encode that knowledge as an evaluation function. Look at the work of Michael Büro and others - also in the U Alberta group - for examples of such knowledge engineering.
Another possibility would be to pose the problem as a Reinforcement Learning problem, where adversary moves are compiled as "afterstates". Look that up on the Barto & Sutton book: http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~sutton/book/the-book.html However the value function for a RL problem resulting from such a compilation might prove a bit difficult to solve optimally - the number of states will blow up like an H-Bomb. However, if you see how to use a factored representation, things can be much easier. And your "strategy" could perhaps be encoded as some shaping function, which would be speeding up the learning process considerably.
EDIT: Damn English prepositions
Related
This is a very difficult problem about how to maneuver a spaceship that can both translate and rotate in 3D, for a space game.
The spaceship has n jets placing in various positions and directions.
Transformation of i-th jet relative to the CM of spaceship is constant = Ti.
Transformation is a tuple of position and orientation (quaternion or matrix 3x3 or, less preferable, Euler angles).
A transformation can also be denoted by a single matrix 4x4.
In other words, all jet are glued to the ship and cannot rotate.
A jet can exert force to the spaceship only in direction of its axis (green).
As a result of glue, the axis rotated along with the spaceship.
All jets can exert force (vector,Fi) at a certain magnitude (scalar,fi) :
i-th jet can exert force (Fi= axis x fi) only within range min_i<= fi <=max_i.
Both min_i and max_i are constant with known value.
To be clear, unit of min_i,fi,max_i is Newton.
Ex. If the range doesn't cover 0, it means that the jet can't be turned off.
The spaceship's mass = m and inertia tensor = I.
The spaceship's current transformation = Tran0, velocity = V0, angularVelocity = W0.
The spaceship physic body follows well-known physic rules :-
Torque=r x F
F=ma
angularAcceleration = I^-1 x Torque
linearAcceleration = m^-1 x F
I is different for each direction, but for the sake of simplicity, it has the same value for every direction (sphere-like). Thus, I can be thought as a scalar instead of matrix 3x3.
Question
How to control all jets (all fi) to land the ship with position=0 and angle=0?
Math-like specification: Find function of fi(time) that take minimum time to reach position=(0,0,0), orient=identity with final angularVelocity and velocity = zero.
More specifically, what are names of technique or related algorithms to solve this problem?
My research (1 dimension)
If the universe is 1D (thus, no rotation), the problem will be easy to solve.
( Thank Gavin Lock, https://stackoverflow.com/a/40359322/3577745 )
First, find the value MIN_BURN=sum{min_i}/m and MAX_BURN=sum{max_i}/m.
Second, think in opposite way, assume that x=0 (position) and v=0 at t=0,
then create two parabolas with x''=MIN_BURN and x''=MAX_BURN.
(The 2nd derivative is assumed to be constant for a period of time, so it is parabola.)
The only remaining work is to join two parabolas together.
The red dash line is where them join.
In the period of time that x''=MAX_BURN, all fi=max_i.
In the period of time that x''=MIN_BURN, all fi=min_i.
It works really well for 1D, but in 3D, the problem is far more harder.
Note:
Just a rough guide pointing me to a correct direction is really appreciated.
I don't need a perfect AI, e.g. it can take a little more time than optimum.
I think about it for more than 1 week, still find no clue.
Other attempts / opinions
I don't think machine learning like neural network is appropriate for this case.
Boundary-constrained-least-square-optimisation may be useful but I don't know how to fit my two hyper-parabola to that form of problem.
This may be solved by using many iterations, but how?
I have searched NASA's website, but not find anything useful.
The feature may exist in "Space Engineer" game.
Commented by Logman: Knowledge in mechanical engineering may help.
Commented by AndyG: It is a motion planning problem with nonholonomic constraints. It could be solved by Rapidly exploring random tree (RRTs), theory around Lyapunov equation, and Linear quadratic regulator.
Commented by John Coleman: This seems more like optimal control than AI.
Edit: "Near-0 assumption" (optional)
In most case, AI (to be designed) run continuously (i.e. called every time-step).
Thus, with the AI's tuning, Tran0 is usually near-identity, V0 and W0 are usually not so different from 0, e.g. |Seta0|<30 degree,|W0|<5 degree per time-step .
I think that AI based on this assumption would work OK in most case. Although not perfect, it can be considered as a correct solution (I started to think that without this assumption, this question might be too hard).
I faintly feel that this assumption may enable some tricks that use some "linear"-approximation.
The 2nd Alternative Question - "Tune 12 Variables" (easier)
The above question might also be viewed as followed :-
I want to tune all six values and six values' (1st-derivative) to be 0, using lowest amount of time-steps.
Here is a table show a possible situation that AI can face:-
The Multiplier table stores inertia^-1 * r and mass^-1 from the original question.
The Multiplier and Range are constant.
Each timestep, the AI will be asked to pick a tuple of values fi that must be in the range [min_i,max_i] for every i+1-th jet.
Ex. From the table, AI can pick (f0=1,f1=0.1,f2=-1).
Then, the caller will use fi to multiply with the Multiplier table to get values''.
Px'' = f0*0.2+f1*0.0+f2*0.7
Py'' = f0*0.3-f1*0.9-f2*0.6
Pz'' = ....................
SetaX''= ....................
SetaY''= ....................
SetaZ''= f0*0.0+f1*0.0+f2*5.0
After that, the caller will update all values' with formula values' += values''.
Px' += Px''
.................
SetaZ' += SetaZ''
Finally, the caller will update all values with formula values += values'.
Px += Px'
.................
SetaZ += SetaZ'
AI will be asked only once for each time-step.
The objective of AI is to return tuples of fi (can be different for different time-step), to make Px,Py,Pz,SetaX,SetaY,SetaZ,Px',Py',Pz',SetaX',SetaY',SetaZ' = 0 (or very near),
by using least amount of time-steps as possible.
I hope providing another view of the problem will make it easier.
It is not the exact same problem, but I feel that a solution that can solve this version can bring me very close to the answer of the original question.
An answer for this alternate question can be very useful.
The 3rd Alternative Question - "Tune 6 Variables" (easiest)
This is a lossy simplified version of the previous alternative.
The only difference is that the world is now 2D, Fi is also 2D (x,y).
Thus I have to tune only Px,Py,SetaZ,Px',Py',SetaZ'=0, by using least amount of time-steps as possible.
An answer to this easiest alternative question can be considered useful.
I'll try to keep this short and sweet.
One approach that is often used to solve these problems in simulation is a Rapidly-Exploring Random Tree. To give at least a little credibility to my post, I'll admit I studied these, and motion planning was my research lab's area of expertise (probabilistic motion planning).
The canonical paper to read on these is Steven LaValle's Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning, and there have been a million papers published since that all improve on it in some way.
First I'll cover the most basic description of an RRT, and then I'll describe how it changes when you have dynamical constraints. I'll leave fiddling with it afterwards up to you:
Terminology
"Spaces"
The state of your spaceship can be described by its 3-dimension position (x, y, z) and its 3-dimensional rotation (alpha, beta, gamma) (I use those greek names because those are the Euler angles).
state space is all possible positions and rotations your spaceship can inhabit. Of course this is infinite.
collision space are all of the "invalid" states. i.e. realistically impossible positions. These are states where your spaceship is in collision with some obstacle (With other bodies this would also include collision with itself, for example planning for a length of chain). Abbreviated as C-Space.
free space is anything that is not collision space.
General Approach (no dynamics constraints)
For a body without dynamical constraints the approach is fairly straightforward:
Sample a state
Find nearest neighbors to that state
Attempt to plan a route between the neighbors and the state
I'll briefly discuss each step
Sampling a state
Sampling a state in the most basic case means choosing at random values for each entry in your state space. If we did this with your space ship, we'd randomly sample for x, y, z, alpha, beta, gamma across all of their possible values (uniform random sampling).
Of course way more of your space is obstacle space than free space typically (because you usually confine your object in question to some "environment" you want to move about inside of). So what is very common to do is to take the bounding cube of your environment and sample positions within it (x, y, z), and now we have a lot higher chance to sample in the free space.
In an RRT, you'll sample randomly most of the time. But with some probability you will actually choose your next sample to be your goal state (play with it, start with 0.05). This is because you need to periodically test to see if a path from start to goal is available.
Finding nearest neighbors to a sampled state
You chose some fixed integer > 0. Let's call that integer k. Your k nearest neighbors are nearby in state space. That means you have some distance metric that can tell you how far away states are from each other. The most basic distance metric is Euclidean distance, which only accounts for physical distance and doesn't care about rotational angles (because in the simplest case you can rotate 360 degrees in a single timestep).
Initially you'll only have your starting position, so it will be the only candidate in the nearest neighbor list.
Planning a route between states
This is called local planning. In a real-world scenario you know where you're going, and along the way you need to dodge other people and moving objects. We won't worry about those things here. In our planning world we assume the universe is static but for us.
What's most common is to assume some linear interpolation between the sampled state and its nearest neighbor. The neighbor (i.e. a node already in the tree) is moved along this linear interpolation bit by bit until it either reaches the sampled configuration, or it travels some maximum distance (recall your distance metric).
What's going on here is that your tree is growing towards the sample. When I say that you step "bit by bit" I mean you define some "delta" (a really small value) and move along the linear interpolation that much each timestep. At each point you check to see if you the new state is in collision with some obstacle. If you hit an obstacle, you keep the last valid configuration as part of the tree (don't forget to store the edge somehow!) So what you'll need for a local planner is:
Collision checking
how to "interpolate" between two states (for your problem you don't need to worry about this because we'll do something different).
A physics simulation for timestepping (Euler integration is quite common, but less stable than something like Runge-Kutta. Fortunately you already have a physics model!
Modification for dynamical constraints
Of course if we assume you can linearly interpolate between states, we'll violate the physics you've defined for your spaceship. So we modify the RRT as follows:
Instead of sampling random states, we sample random controls and apply said controls for a fixed time period (or until collision).
Before, when we sampled random states, what we were really doing was choosing a direction (in state space) to move. Now that we have constraints, we randomly sample our controls, which is effectively the same thing, except we're guaranteed not to violate our constraints.
After you apply your control for a fixed time interval (or until collision), you add a node to the tree, with the control stored on the edge. Your tree will grow very fast to explore the space. This control application replaces linear interpolation between tree states and sampled states.
Sampling the controls
You have n jets that individually have some min and max force they can apply. Sample within that min and max force for each jet.
Which node(s) do I apply my controls to?
Well you can choose at random, or your can bias the selection to choose nodes that are nearest to your goal state (need the distance metric). This biasing will try to grow nodes closer to the goal over time.
Now, with this approach, you're unlikely to exactly reach your goal, so you need to define some definition of "close enough". That is, you will use your distance metric to find nearest neighbors to your goal state, and then test them for "close enough". This "close enough" metric can be different than your distance metric, or not. If you're using Euclidean distance, but it's very important that you goal configuration is also rotated properly, then you may want to modify the "close enough" metric to look at angle differences.
What is "close enough" is entirely up to you. Also something for you to tune, and there are a million papers that try to get you a lot closer in the first place.
Conclusion
This random sampling may sound ridiculous, but your tree will grow to explore your free space very quickly. See some youtube videos on RRT for path planning. We can't guarantee something called "probabilistic completeness" with dynamical constraints, but it's usually "good enough". Sometimes it'll be possible that a solution does not exist, so you'll need to put some logic in there to stop growing the tree after a while (20,000 samples for example)
More Resources:
Start with these, and then start looking into their citations, and then start looking into who is citing them.
Kinodynamic RRT*
RRT-Connect
This is not an answer, but it's too long to place as a comment.
First of all, a real solution will involve both linear programming (for multivariate optimization with constraints that will be used in many of the substeps) as well as techniques used in trajectory optimization and/or control theory. This is a very complex problem and if you can solve it, you could have a job at any company of your choosing. The only thing that could make this problem worse would be friction (drag) effects or external body gravitation effects. A real solution would also ideally use Verlet integration or 4th order Runge Kutta, which offer improvements over the Euler integration you've implemented here.
Secondly, I believe your "2nd Alternative Version" of your question above has omitted the rotational influence on the positional displacement vector you add into the position at each timestep. While the jet axes all remain fixed relative to the frame of reference of the ship, they do not remain fixed relative to the global coordinate system you are using to land the ship (at global coordinate [0, 0, 0]). Therefore the [Px', Py', Pz'] vector (calculated from the ship's frame of reference) must undergo appropriate rotation in all 3 dimensions prior to being applied to the global position coordinates.
Thirdly, there are some implicit assumptions you failed to specify. For example, one dimension should be defined as the "landing depth" dimension and negative coordinate values should be prohibited (unless you accept a fiery crash). I developed a mockup model for this in which I assumed z dimension to be the landing dimension. This problem is very sensitive to initial state and the constraints placed on the jets. All of my attempts using your example initial conditions above failed to land. For example, in my mockup (without the 3d displacement vector rotation noted above), the jet constraints only allow for rotation in one direction on the z-axis. So if aZ becomes negative at any time (which is often the case) the ship is actually forced to complete another full rotation on that axis before it can even try to approach zero degrees again. Also, without the 3d displacement vector rotation, you will find that Px will only go negative using your example initial conditions and constraints, and the ship is forced to either crash or diverge farther and farther onto the negative x-axis as it attempts to maneuver. The only way to solve this is to truly incorporate rotation or allow for sufficient positive and negative jet forces.
However, even when I relaxed your min/max force constraints, I was unable to get my mockup to land successfully, demonstrating how complex planning will probably be required here. Unless it is possible to completely formulate this problem in linear programming space, I believe you will need to incorporate advanced planning or stochastic decision trees that are "smart" enough to continually use rotational methods to reorient the most flexible jets onto the currently most necessary axes.
Lastly, as I noted in the comments section, "On May 14, 2015, the source code for Space Engineers was made freely available on GitHub to the public." If you believe that game already contains this logic, that should be your starting place. However, I suspect you are bound to be disappointed. Most space game landing sequences simply take control of the ship and do not simulate "real" force vectors. Once you take control of a 3-d model, it is very easy to predetermine a 3d spline with rotation that will allow the ship to land softly and with perfect bearing at the predetermined time. Why would any game programmer go through this level of work for a landing sequence? This sort of logic could control ICBM missiles or planetary rover re-entry vehicles and it is simply overkill IMHO for a game (unless the very purpose of the game is to see if you can land a damaged spaceship with arbitrary jets and constraints without crashing).
I can introduce another technique into the mix of (awesome) answers proposed.
It lies more in AI, and provides close-to-optimal solutions. It's called Machine Learning, more specifically Q-Learning. It's surprisingly easy to implement but hard to get right.
The advantage is that the learning can be done offline, so the algorithm can then be super fast when used.
You could do the learning when the ship is built or when something happens to it (thruster destruction, large chunks torn away...).
Optimality
I observed you're looking for near-optimal solutions. Your method with parabolas is good for optimal control. What you did is this:
Observe the state of the system.
For every state (coming in too fast, too slow, heading away, closing in etc.) you devised an action (apply a strategy) that will bring the system into a state closer to the goal.
Repeat
This is pretty much intractable for a human in 3D (too many cases, will drive you nuts) however a machine may learn where to split the parabolas in every dimensions, and devise an optimal strategy by itself.
THe Q-learning works very similarly to us:
Observe the (secretized) state of the system
Select an action based on a strategy
If this action brought the system into a desirable state (closer to the goal), mark the action/initial state as more desirable
Repeat
Discretize your system's state.
For each state, have a map intialized quasi-randomly, which maps every state to an Action (this is the strategy). Also assign a desirability to each state (initially, zero everywhere and 1000000 to the target state (X=0, V=0).
Your state would be your 3 positions, 3 angles, 3translation speed, and three rotation speed.
Your actions can be any combination of thrusters
Training
Train the AI (offline phase):
Generate many diverse situations
Apply the strategy
Evaluate the new state
Let the algo (see links above) reinforce the selected strategies' desirability value.
Live usage in the game
After some time, a global strategy for navigation emerges. You then store it, and during your game loop you simply sample your strategy and apply it to each situation as they come up.
The strategy may still learn during this phase, but probably more slowly (because it happens real-time). (Btw, I dream of a game where the AI would learn from every user's feedback so we could collectively train it ^^)
Try this in a simple 1D problem, it devises a strategy remarkably quickly (a few seconds).
In 2D I believe excellent results could be obtained in an hour.
For 3D... You're looking at overnight computations. There's a few thing to try and accelerate the process:
Try to never 'forget' previous computations, and feed them as an initial 'best guess' strategy. Save it to a file!
You might drop some states (like ship roll maybe?) without losing much navigation optimality but increasing computation speed greatly. Maybe change referentials so the ship is always on the X-axis, this way you'll drop x&y dimensions!
States more frequently encountered will have a reliable and very optimal strategy. Maybe normalize the state to make your ship state always close to a 'standard' state?
Typically rotation speeds intervals may be bounded safely (you don't want a ship tumbling wildely, so the strategy will always be to "un-wind" that speed). Of course rotation angles are additionally bounded.
You can also probably discretize non-linearly the positions because farther away from the objective, precision won't affect the strategy much.
For these kind of problems there are two techniques available: bruteforce search and heuristics. Bruteforce means to recognize the problem as a blackbox with input and output parameters and the aim is to get the right input parameters for winning the game. To program such a bruteforce search, the gamephysics runs in a simulation loop (physics simulation) and via stochastic search (minimax, alpha-beta-prunning) every possibility is tried out. The disadvantage of bruteforce search is the high cpu consumption.
The other techniques utilizes knowledge about the game. Knowledge about motion primitives and about evaluation. This knowledge is programmed with normal computerlanguages like C++ or Java. The disadvantage of this idea is, that it is often difficult to grasp the knowledge.
The best practice for solving spaceship navigation is to combine both ideas into a hybrid system. For programming sourcecode for this concrete problem I estimate that nearly 2000 lines of code are necessary. These kind of problems are normaly done within huge projects with many programmers and takes about 6 months.
I'm refering mostly to this paper here: http://clgiles.ist.psu.edu/papers/UMD-CS-TR-3617.what.size.neural.net.to.use.pdf
Current Setup:
I'm currently trying to port the neural-genetic AI solution that I have laying around to get into a multi-purpose multi-agent tool. So, for example, it should work as an AI in a game engine for moving around entities and let 'em shoot and destroy the enemy (so e.g. 4 inputs like distance x,y and angle x,y and 2 outputs like accelerate left,right).
The state so far is that I'm using the same amount of genomes as there are agents to determine the fittest agents. 20% of the fittest agents are combined with each other (zz, zw genomes selected) and create 2 babies for the new population each. The rest of the new population per-new-generation is selected randomly across the old population, including the fittest with-an-unfit-genome.
That works pretty well to prime the AI, after generation 50-100 it is pretty much human-unbeatable in a Breakout clone and a little Tank game where you can shoot and move around.
As I had the idea to use on evolution population for each "type of Agent" the question is now if it is possible to determine the amount of hidden layers and the amount of neurons in the hidden layers generically.
My setup for the tank game is 4 inputs, 3 outputs and 1 hidden layer with 12 neurons that worked the best (around 50 generations to be really strong).
My setup for a breakout game is 6 inputs, 2 outputs and 2 hidden layers with 12 neurons that seems to work best.
Done Research:
So, back to the paper: On page 32 you can see that it seems that more neurons per hidden layer need of course more time for priming, but the more neurons are in between, the more are the chances to get into the function without noise.
I currently prime my AI only using the fitness increase on successfully being better than the last try.
So in a tank game it means he successfully shot the other tank (wounded him 4 times is better, then enemy is dead) and won the round.
In the breakout game it's similar as I have a paddle that the AI can move around and it can collect points. "Getting shot" or negative treatment here is that it forgot to catch the ball. So potential noise input would be 2 output values (move-left, move-right) that depend on 4 input values (ball x, y, degx, degy).
Questions:
So, what kind of calculation for the amount of hidden layers and amount of neurons do you think can be a good tradeoff to have no noise that kills the genome evolution?
What is the minimum amount of agents until you can say that "it evolves further"? My current training setup is always around having 50 agents that learn in parallel (so they basically simulate 50 games in parallel "behind the scenes").
In sum, for most problems, one could probably get decent performance (even without a second optimization step) by setting the hidden layer configuration using just two rules: (i) number of hidden layers equals one; and (ii) the number of neurons in that layer is the mean of the neurons in the input and output layers.
-doug
In short. It's an ongoing area of research. Most (All that I know of) ANN using numerous neurons and H-Layers don't set a static number of either, instead they use algorithms to continuously modify these values. Usually constructing and destroying when outputs converge/diverge.
Since it sounds like you're already using some evolutionary computing, consider looking into Andrew Turner's work on CGPANN, I remember it getting pretty decent improvements on benchmarks similar to your work.
Sorry I'm just starting this project and don't have any ideas or code, I'm asking more of a theoretical question than a programming one.
It seems that every google search provides the same responses and it's very hard to find an answer to this question:
Is there a way to calculate win percentages for texas holdem poker (the same way they do on poker after dark or other televised poker events) without using the monte carlo/exhaustive enumeration methods. Assuming all cards are face up and we know every card in the deck.
Every response on other forums just seems to be "use pokerstove" or something similar, I'm looking for the theory to write the code.
Thanks.
Is there a way to calculate win percentages for texas holdem poker
(the same way they do on poker after dark or other televised poker
events) without using the monte carlo/exhaustive enumeration methods.
In specific instances it is possible...
You can use a perfect lookup table preflop for two players heads-up preflop matchups: note that the "typical" 169 vs 169 approximation ain't good enough (say Jh Th vs 9h 8h ain't really "JTs vs 98s": I mean, that would quite a gross approximation).
Besides that if you have a lot of memory and if you can live with gigantic cache misses, you technically could precompute gigantic lookup tables (say on the server side) and do lookups for other cases (e.g. for every possible three players all-in matchups preflop), but you'd really need a lot of memory : )
Note that "full enumeration" at flop and turn ain't an issue: at flop there's only 2 more cards to come, so there are typically only C(45,2) [two players all-in at flop, we know 2*2 holecards + 3 community cards -- hence leaving 990 possibilities] or C(43,2) [three players all-in at at flop, we know 3*2 holecards + 3 community cards].
So an actual evaluator would not use one but several methods. For example:
lookup table for two players all-in preflop (the fastest)
full enum for any number of players all-in at flop or turn because it's tiny (max 990 possibilities) -- very fast
monte-carlo or full enum for three players or more all-in preflop -- incredibly slower
It is interesting to see here that in the most typical cases you'll get the result very, very fast: most actual all-ins involve two players, not three or more.
So you're either looking up in a "1 vs 1 preflop" lookup table or doing full C(45,2) or C(46,1) full enum (which are, in both case, amazingly fast).
It's really only the "three players or more all-in preflop" case which do take time.
The answer is no.
There is no closed form computation that you can do to compute poker equities. Using combinatorics, you can identify and solve many subproblems, which speeds up computation.
For example, if you are considering all five card hands, there are 52 choose 5 = 2,598,960 different hands. But knowing that suits are equivalent and using combinatorial methods (either analytic or computational), you can reduce the space of all hands to 134,459 classes each weighted according to the number of different hands in each equivalent class.
There are also various ways of using exhaustive evaluations tailored to your application. If you need to perform some subset of evaluations repeatedly, you can use caches or precomputed lookup tables targeted to your specific needs.
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 want to program a chess engine which learns to make good moves and win against other players. I've already coded a representation of the chess board and a function which outputs all possible moves. So I only need an evaluation function which says how good a given situation of the board is. Therefore, I would like to use an artificial neural network which should then evaluate a given position. The output should be a numerical value. The higher the value is, the better is the position for the white player.
My approach is to build a network of 385 neurons: There are six unique chess pieces and 64 fields on the board. So for every field we take 6 neurons (1 for every piece). If there is a white piece, the input value is 1. If there is a black piece, the value is -1. And if there is no piece of that sort on that field, the value is 0. In addition to that there should be 1 neuron for the player to move. If it is White's turn, the input value is 1 and if it's Black's turn, the value is -1.
I think that configuration of the neural network is quite good. But the main part is missing: How can I implement this neural network into a coding language (e.g. Delphi)? I think the weights for each neuron should be the same in the beginning. Depending on the result of a match, the weights should then be adjusted. But how? I think I should let 2 computer players (both using my engine) play against each other. If White wins, Black gets the feedback that its weights aren't good.
So it would be great if you could help me implementing the neural network into a coding language (best would be Delphi, otherwise pseudo-code). Thanks in advance!
In case somebody randomly finds this page. Given what we know now, what the OP proposes is almost certainly possible. In fact we managed to do it for a game with much larger state space - Go ( https://deepmind.com/research/case-studies/alphago-the-story-so-far ).
I don't see why you can't have a neural net for a static evaluator if you also do some classic mini-max lookahead with alpha-beta pruning. Lots of Chess engines use minimax with a braindead static evaluator that just adds up the pieces or something; it doesn't matter so much if you have enough levels of minimax. I don't know how much of an improvement the net would make but there's little to lose. Training it would be tricky though. I'd suggest using an engine that looks ahead many moves (and takes loads of CPU etc) to train the evaluator for an engine that looks ahead fewer moves. That way you end up with an engine that doesn't take as much CPU (hopefully).
Edit: I wrote the above in 2010, and now in 2020 Stockfish NNUE has done it. "The network is optimized and trained on the [classical Stockfish] evaluations of millions of positions at moderate search depth" and then used as a static evaluator, and in their initial tests they got an 80-elo improvement when using this static evaluator instead of their previous one (or, equivalently, the same elo with a little less CPU time). So yes it does work, and you don't even have to train the network at high search depth as I originally suggested: moderate search depth is enough, but the key is to use many millions of positions.
Been there, done that. Since there is no continuity in your problem (the value of a position is not closely related to an other position with only 1 change in the value of one input), there is very little chance a NN would work. And it never did in my experiments.
I would rather see a simulated annealing system with an ad-hoc heuristic (of which there are plenty out there) to evaluate the value of the position...
However, if you are set on using a NN, is is relatively easy to represent. A general NN is simply a graph, with each node being a neuron. Each neuron has a current activation value, and a transition formula to compute the next activation value, based on input values, i.e. activation values of all the nodes that have a link to it.
A more classical NN, that is with an input layer, an output layer, identical neurons for each layer, and no time-dependency, can thus be represented by an array of input nodes, an array of output nodes, and a linked graph of nodes connecting those. Each node possesses a current activation value, and a list of nodes it forwards to. Computing the output value is simply setting the activations of the input neurons to the input values, and iterating through each subsequent layer in turn, computing the activation values from the previous layer using the transition formula. When you have reached the last (output) layer, you have your result.
It is possible, but not trivial by any means.
https://erikbern.com/2014/11/29/deep-learning-for-chess/
To train his evaluation function, he utilized a lot of computing power to do so.
To summarize generally, you could go about it as follows. Your evaluation function is a feedforward NN. Let the matrix computations lead to a scalar output valuing how good the move is. The input vector for the network is the board state represented by all the pieces on the board so say white pawn is 1, white knight is 2... and empty space is 0. An example board state input vector is simply a sequence of 0-12's. This evaluation can be trained using grandmaster games (available at a fics database for example) for many games, minimizing loss between what the current parameters say is the highest valuation and what move the grandmasters made (which should have the highest valuation). This of course assumes that the grandmaster moves are correct and optimal.
What you need to train a ANN is either something like backpropagation learning or some form of a genetic algorithm. But chess is such an complex game that it is unlikly that a simple ANN will learn to play it - even more if the learning process is unsupervised.
Further, your question does not say anything about the number of layers. You want to use 385 input neurons to encode the current situation. But how do you want to decide what to do? On neuron per field? Highest excitation wins? But there is often more than one possible move.
Further you will need several hidden layers - the functions that can be represented with an input and an output layer without hidden layer are really limited.
So I do not want to prevent you from trying it, but chances for a successful implemenation and training within say one year or so a practically zero.
I tried to build and train an ANN to play Tic-tac-toe when I was 16 years or so ... and I failed. I would suggest to try such an simple game first.
The main problem I see here is one of training. You say you want your ANN to take the current board position and evaluate how good it is for a player. (I assume you will take every possible move for a player, apply it to the current board state, evaluate via the ANN and then take the one with the highest output - ie: hill climbing)
Your options as I see them are:
Develop some heuristic function to evaluate the board state and train the network off that. But that begs the question of why use an ANN at all, when you could just use your heuristic.
Use some statistical measure such as "How many games were won by white or black from this board configuration?", which would give you a fitness value between white or black. The difficulty with that is the amount of training data required for the size of your problem space.
With the second option you could always feed it board sequences from grandmaster games and hope there is enough coverage for the ANN to develop a solution.
Due to the complexity of the problem I'd want to throw the largest network (ie: lots of internal nodes) at it as I could without slowing down the training too much.
Your input algorithm is sound - all positions, all pieces, and both players are accounted for. You may need an input layer for every past state of the gameboard, so that past events are used as input again.
The output layer should (in some form) give the piece to move, and the location to move to.
Write a genetic algorithm using a connectome which contains all neuron weights and synapse strengths, and begin multiple separated gene pools with a large number of connectomes in each.
Make them play one another, keep the best handful, crossover and mutate the best connectomes to repopulate the pool.
Read blondie24 : http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blondie24-Playing-Kaufmann-Artificial-Intelligence/dp/1558607838.
It deals with checkers instead of chess but the principles are the same.
Came here to say what Silas said. Using a minimax algorithm, you can expect to be able to look ahead N moves. Using Alpha-beta pruning, you can expand that to theoretically 2*N moves, but more realistically 3*N/4 moves. Neural networks are really appropriate here.
Perhaps though a genetic algorithm could be used.