Advertisement

Applied Intelligence

, Volume 48, Issue 8, pp 1893–1911 | Cite as

Novel threat-based AI strategies that incorporate adaptive data structures for multi-player board games

  • Spencer PolkEmail author
  • B. John Oommen
Article
  • 345 Downloads

Abstract

This paper considers the problem of designing novel techniques for multi-player game playing, in a range of board games and configurations. Compared to the well-known case of two-player game playing, multi-player game playing is a more complex problem with unique requirements. To address the unique challenges of this domain, we examine the potential of employing techniques inspired by Adaptive Data Structures (ADSs) to rank opponents based on their relative threats, and using this information to achieve gains in move ordering and tree pruning. We name our new technique the Threat-ADS heuristic. We examine the Threat-ADS’ performance within a range of game models, employing a number of different, well-understood update mechanisms for ADSs. We then extend our analysis to specifically consider intermediate board states, which are more interesting than the initial board state, as we do not assume the availability of “Opening book” moves, and where substantial variation can exist, in terms of available moves and threatening opponents. We expand this analysis to include an exploration of the Threat-ADS heuristic’s performance in deeper ply game trees, to confirm that it maintains its benefits even when lookahead is greater, and with an expanded examination of how the number of players present in the game impacts the performance of the Threat-ADS heuristic. We find that in nearly all environments, the Threat-ADS heuristic is able to produce meaningful, statistically significant improvements in tree pruning, demonstrating that it serves as a very reliable move ordering heuristic for multi-player game playing under a wide range of configurations, thus motivating the use of ADS-based techniques within the field of game playing.

Keywords

Multi-player game playing Adaptive data structures Move ordering Alpha-beta search 

References

  1. 1.
    Albers S, Westbrook J (1998) Self-organizing data structures. In: Online algorithms, pp 13–51Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coe R It’s the effect size, stupid: what effect size is and why it is important. In: Annual conference of the british educational research association. University of Exeter, Exeter, p 2002Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Corman TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C (2009) Introduction to algorithms, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Upper Saddle River, pp 302–320Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Estivill-Castro V (1992) Move-To-End is best for double-linked lists. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on computing and information, pp 84–87Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gonnet GH, Munro JI, Suwanda H (1979) Towards self-organizing linear search. In: Proceedings of FOCS’79, the 1979 annual symposium on foundations of computer science, pp 169–171Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hester JH, Hirschberg DS (1985) Self-organizing linear search. ACM Comput Surv 17:285–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levene M, Bar-Ilan J (2006) Comparing typical opening move choices made by humans and chess engines. Computing Research RepositoryGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Luckhardt C, Irani K (1986) An algorithmic solution of n-person games. In: Proceedings of the AAAI’86, pp 158–162Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oommen BJ, Ma DCY (1988) Deterministic learning automata solutions to the equipartitioning problem. IEEE Trans Comput:37Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pettie S (2008) Splay trees, davenport-schinzel sequences, and the deque conjecture. In: Proceedings of the nineteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithmsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Polk S, Oommen BJ (2013) On applying adaptive data structures to multi-player game playing. In: Proceedings of AI’2013, the thirty-third SGAI conference on artificial intelligence, pp 125– 138Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Polk S, Oommen BJ (2013) On enhancing recent multi-player game playing strategies using a spectrum of adaptive data structures. In: Proceedings of TAAI’2013, the 2013 conference on technologies and applications of artificial intelligence, pp 164– 169Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Polk S, Oommen BJ (2015) Enhancing history-based move ordering in game playing using adaptive data structures. In: Proceedings of ICCCI’2015, the 7th international conference on computational collective intelligence technologies and applications, pp 225–235Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Polk S, Oommen BJ (2015) Novel AI strategies for multi-player games at intermediate board states. In: Proceedings of IEA/AIE’2015, the twenty-eighth international conference on industrial, engineering, and other applications of applied intelligent systems, pp 33–42Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rendell P (2011) A universal turing machine in conway’s game of life. In: Proceedings of HPCS’11, the 2011 international conference on high performance computing and simulation, pp 764–772Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rivest RL (1974) On self-organizing sequential search heuristics. In: Proceedings of the 1974 IEEE symposium on switching and automata theory, pp 63–67Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Russell SJ, Norvig P (2009) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, pp 161–201zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sacksin S (1969) A gamut of games random houseGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schadd MPD, Winands MHM (2011) Best reply search for multiplayer games. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 3:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schaeffer J (1989) The history heuristic and alpha-beta search enhancements in practice. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 11:1203–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schrder E (2007) Move ordering in rebel. Discussion of move ordering techniques used in REBEL a powerful chess engineGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shannon CE (1950) Programming a computer for playing Chess. Phil Mag 41:256–275MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sleator DD, Tarjan RE (1985) Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules. Commun ACM 28:202–208MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sturtevant N (2002) A comparison of algorithms for multi-player games. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on computers and games, pp 108–122Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sturtevant N (2003) Multi-player games: algorithms and Approaches. PhD thesis, University of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sturtevant N, Bowling M (2006) Robust game play against unknown opponents. In: Proceedings of AAMAS’06, the 2006 international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 713–719Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sturtevant N, Zinkevich M (2006) Prob-Maxn: playing n-player games with opponent models. In: Proceedings of AAAI’06, the 2006 national conference on artificial intelligence, pp 1057– 1063Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Szita I, Guillame C, Spronck P (2009) Monte-carlo tree search in settlers of catan. In: Proceedings of ACG’09, the 2009 conference on advances in computer games, pp 21–32Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Turner A, Miller J (2013) The importance of topology evolution in neuroevolution: a case study using cartesian genetic programming of artificial neural networks. In: Proceedings of AI’2013, the thirty-third SGAI conference on artificial intelligence, pp 213– 226Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zuckerman I, Felner A, Kraus S (2009) Mixing search strategies for multi-player games. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’09, the twenty-first international joint conferences on artificial intelligence, pp 646–651Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  2. 2.University of AgderGrimstadNorway

Personalised recommendations