I've often wondered how I would program a computer to play a game, chess or go, if I had perfect information about the game. How do you make it more difficult to win against a fallible opponent?
I assume that in many positions there are more than 1 maximizing move. I would of course restrict the computer to those moves (I call those moves "good" moves in an idealistic sense and everything else as "bad") I guess you would simply steer towards positions where the computer had lot's of "good" moves and the opponent had very few "good" moves. If I were doing this for chess, I might just build an evaluation function based on trying to maintain the highest legal move count possible and do a limited depth search - restricting myself of course to only maximizing or "good" moves. In go, I think you would want to keep as many things going on at the same time as possible, and you would want to increase the number of interactions on the board. I am sure a perfect computer could gain a few stones by confusing the opponent in this way as opposed to playing a straightforward game. - Don On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 11:06 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote: > > A good point to consider - is "God" actively trying > > to confuse his > > opponent and complicate things, or is he simply > > playing objectively best > > moves? > > good question. if his goal is to win with zero > handicap, all he has to do is pick a branch that > ends with a win for, say, W. if he is starting > from a branch without such a terminus, he has to > try to move the game into such a branch. > > if it's a handicap game, then the question boils > down to getting "over" to a winning branch from > the tree whose initial state is completely > different -- there are handicap stones on the > board. > > more likely is that you play with high komi -- > then the goal is to move "over" to a branch > whose terminus is both a win and is by more than > "komi" points. > > since there's no guarantee that you can get > to such a branch, and since it's unlikely that > the "absolute advantage" of W over B is more than > 4 stones (or, say, 30 komi), this means that > you have to try to get your opponent to make a > mistake that will take you over into one of these > "> komi + win" branches. > > likely the human opponent will play non-optimally > in the first few moves. this will negate some of > the komi. any move outside a "win w/o komi" > branch will take you to a "lose by X w/o komi" > branch, and "god" will know how to capitalize upon > that to make up some more komi. this isn't enough > to win the game, however, so "god" has to figure > out how to maneuver the game over there. > > one approach might be to play moves where the > greatest number of terminal nodes in that move > subtree have winning scores in the "> komi" range. > then you maximize the probability that an error (or > series of errors) by the human player will result in > a win for you. > > of course, once you're in a "win by > komi" branch, > you're done. you just play it out with perfect > refutations of every move. > > however, objectively the game is a win for only > one player at the start, and the only way to > overcome enough handicap (or komi) is to attempt > to capitalize on errors (or inefficiencies, which > in a completely solved game can be considered errors) > made by your opponent. > > s. > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Sponsored Link > > $200,000 mortgage for $660/ mo - > 30/15 yr fixed, reduce debt - > http://yahoo.ratemarketplace.com > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
