1 / 15

Adversarial Search

Adversarial Search Chapter 6 Section 1 – 4 Games vs. search problems "Unpredictable" opponent  specifying a move for every possible opponent reply Time limits  unlikely to find goal, must approximate Solutions Search problems: a path Games: a strategy But how?

emily
Download Presentation

Adversarial Search

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. Adversarial Search Chapter 6 Section 1 – 4

  2. Games vs. search problems • "Unpredictable" opponent  specifying a move for every possible opponent reply • Time limits  unlikely to find goal, must approximate • Solutions • Search problems: a path • Games: a strategy • But how?

  3. Game tree (2-player, deterministic, turns)

  4. Minimax • Perfect play for deterministic games • Idea: choose move to position with highest minimax value = best achievable payoff against best play • E.g., 2-ply game:

  5. Minimax algorithm

  6. Properties of minimax • Complete? Yes (if tree is finite) • Optimal? Yes (against an optimal opponent) • Time complexity? O(bm) • Space complexity? O(bm) (depth-first exploration) • For chess, b ≈ 35, m ≈100 for "reasonable" games exact solution completely infeasible

  7. α-β pruning example

  8. α-β pruning example

  9. α-β pruning example

  10. α-β pruning example

  11. α-β pruning example

  12. Properties of α-β • Pruning does not affect final result • Good move ordering improves effectiveness of pruning • With "perfect ordering," time complexity = O(bm/2) • A simple example of the value of reasoning about which computations are relevant (a form of meta-reasoning)

  13. Resource limits Suppose we have 100 secs, explore 104 nodes/sec106nodes per move Standard approach: • cutoff test: e.g., depth limit (perhaps add quiescence search) Explore nonquiescent positions further until quiescence • evaluation function = estimated desirability of position

  14. Evaluation functions • For chess, typically linear weighted sum of features Eval(s) = w1 f1(s) + w2 f2(s) + … + wn fn(s) • e.g., w1 = 9 with f1(s) = (number of white queens) – (number of black queens), etc.

  15. Cutting off search MinimaxCutoff is identical to MinimaxValue except • Terminal? is replaced by Cutoff? • Utility is replaced by Eval Does it work in practice? bm = 106, b=35  m=4 4-step lookahead is a hopeless chess player! • 4-step ≈ human novice • 8-step ≈ typical PC, human master • 12-step ≈ Deep Blue, Kasparov

More Related