Advertisement

Comparative Study of Approximate Strategies for Playing Sum Games Based on Subgame Types

  • Cherif R. S. Andraos
  • Manal M. Zaky
  • Salma A. Ghoneim
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4630)

Abstract

Combinatorial games of the form {{A|B}|{C|D}} can be classified as either left excitable, right excitable, or equitable [2]. Several approximate strategies for playing sums of games of this form have been proposed in the literature [2,3,4]. In this work we propose a new approach for evaluating the different strategies based on the types of the subgames participating in a sum game. While previous comparisons [3,4] were only able to rank the strategies according to their average performance in a large number of randomly generated games, our evaluation is able to pinpoint the strengths and weaknesses of each strategy. We show that none of the strategies can be considered the best in an absolute sense. Therefore we recommend the development of type-based approximate strategies with enhanced performance.

Keywords

Game Model Type Combination Game Generator Real Game Approximate Strategy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Andraos, C.R.S.: Development of an Integrated Game Strategy Based on Classical AI Game Analysis Techniques and Combinatorial Game Theory. M.Sc. Thesis, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berlekamp, E.R., Conway, J.H., Guy, R.K.: Winning Ways. Academic Press, London, 1982. Revised version published by A.K. Peters, Natlick, MA, USA (2001–2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cazenave, T.: Comparative evaluation of strategies based on the values of direct threats. Board Games in Academia V, Barcelona (2002), http://www.ai.univ-paris8.fr/~cazenave/ts.ps
  4. 4.
    Müller, M., Li, Z.: Locally Informed Global Search for Sums of Combinatorial Games. In: van den Herik, H.J., Björnsson, Y., Netanyahu, N.S. (eds.) CG 2004. LNCS, vol. 3846, pp. 273–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spight, W.: Go Thermography - the 4/21/98 Jiang-Rui Endgame. In: Nowakowski, R. (ed.) More Games of No Chance, pp. 89–105. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cherif R. S. Andraos
    • 1
  • Manal M. Zaky
    • 1
  • Salma A. Ghoneim
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer and Systems Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, CairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations