On Board-Filling Games with Random-Turn Order and Monte Carlo Perfectness

  • Ingo Althöfer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7168)


In a game, pure Monte Carlo search with parameter T means that for each feasible move T random games are generated. The move with the best average score is played. We call a game “Monte Carlo perfect” when this straightforward procedure converges to perfect play for each position, when T goes to infinity. Many popular games like Go, Hex, and Amazons are NOT Monte Carlo perfect.

In this paper, two-player zero-sum games are investigated where the turn-order is random: always a fair coin flip decides which player acts in the next move. A whole class of such random-turn games is proven to be Monte Carlo perfect. The result and generalisations are discussed, with example games ranging from very abstract to very concrete.


Free Cell Game Tree Veto Player Optimal Move Fair Coin 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Althöfer, I.: On the Laziness of Monte-Carlo Game Tree Search in Non-Tight Situations. Technical report (2008),
  2. [2]
    Althöfer, I.: Game Self-Play with Pure Monte-Carlo: the Basin Structure. Technical report (2010),
  3. [3]
    Althöfer, I.: Rules and Sample Match of the Game OdOku. Technical report (2011),
  4. [4]
    Berg, R.H.: Pirate board game, Blackbeard. Avalon Hill Company (1991), evaluated, (accessed on August 01, 2011)
  5. [5]
    Browne, C.: Connection Games: Variations on a Theme. AK Peters, Massachusetts (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Browne, C.: On the Dangers of Random Playouts. ICGA Journal 34, 25–26 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Brügmann, B.: Monte Carlo Go. Unpublished Report (1993), but online available at several places, for instance at
  8. [8]
    Coulom, R.: Efficient Selectivity and Backup Operators in Monte-Carlo Tree Search. In: van den Herik, H.J., Ciancarini, P., Donkers, H.H.L.M(J.) (eds.) CG 2006. LNCS, vol. 4630, pp. 72–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Fishman, G.S.: Monte Carlo: Concepts, Algorithms, and Applications. Springer, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Hammersley, J.M., Handscomb, D.C.: Monte Carlo Methods. Methuen, London (1975)Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Kocsis, L., Szepesvári, C.: Bandit Based Monte-Carlo Planning. In: Fürnkranz, J., Scheffer, T., Spiliopoulou, M. (eds.) ECML 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4212, pp. 282–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Peres, Y., Schramm, O., Sheffield, S., Wilson, D.B.: Random-Turn Hex and other Selection Games. American Mathematical Monthly 114, 373–387 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Tromp, J.: John’s Connect Four Playground, (last accessed on August 06, 2011)
  14. [14]
    Wilson, D.B.: Hexamania - Computer Program for Playing Random-Turn Hex, Random-Turn Tripod, and the Harmonic Explorer Game (2005),
  15. [15]
    Yang, Y., Zhou, S.G., Li, Y.: Square++: Making a Connection Game Win-Lose Complementary, Free Deadlock and Playing-Fair. Technical Report, School of Computer Science, Fudan University (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingo Althöfer
    • 1
  1. 1.Fakultät für Mathematik und InformatikFriedrich-Schiller-UniversitätJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations