Making Diplomacy Bots Individual

Chapter

Abstract

Diplomacy is a round-based strategy game with simple rules but a real-time component as players move in parallel. It also emphasizes negotiation between players, which is difficult to realize in a bot but essential to achieve a human-like playing style. In a previous work, we found that in Turing Tests, players mainly use three usual shortcomings of current bot implementations to identify them as computer players, a certain level of playing strength which makes planning necessary, the avoidance of mistakes, that is moves a human most likely would not use, and a meaningful communication. According to previous results, it seems to be especially hard to combine well-playing with a human-like move style. While the communication problem has already been treated successfully at least for short games, currently known CI-based bots do not plan ahead. We present a planning Diplomacy bot which employs the negotiation kernel of an already existing bot and apply our believability measure technique in a new and interesting way. Instead of learning how to minimize the number of bad moves according to a mixture of games of several players—this had proved difficult as different players regard different moves as bad or computer-like—we go a step into the direction of mimicking human player styles by using only saved games of one person each. We thus effectively create a bot which is playing well, including planning, uses basic communication and partly inherits the playing style of a specific human player. The different obtained bots are compared according to playing strength and believability.

Keywords

Planning Module Playing Strength Opponent Modeling Believability Measure Human Player 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Ackermann, N.: Evolutionäre Spielbaumsuche für das Strategiespiel Diplomacy. Dipl. Inf. Diploma Thesis, Department of Computer Science, TU Dortmund (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Axelrod, R.M.: The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Booijink, B.: Strategy evolution and resolution deduction in diplomacy. Master’s Thesis, University of Groningen, Artificial Intelligence (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calhamer, A.B.: Calhamer on Diplomacy: The Boardgame Diplomacy and Diplomatic History. Authorhouse, Bloomington (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eiben, A.E., Smith, J.E.: Introduction to Evolutionary Computing. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fàbregues, A., Sierra, C.: Diplomacy game: the test bed. PerAdaMagazine (2009). http://www.perada-magazine.eu/view.php?source=1761-2009-08-03
  7. 7.
    Fàbregues, A., Sierra, C.: A testbed for multiagent systems. Technical report, IIIA-CSIC, Bellaterra, Barcelona (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hand, M.: The diplomatic pouch: the library of diplomacy openings (1995). http://www.diplom.org/Online/Openings/textversion/
  9. 9.
    Johansson, S.J.: On using multi-agent systems in playing board games. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2006), pp. 569–576. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johansson, S.J., Håård, F.: Tactical coordination in no-press diplomacy. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2005), pp. 423–430. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Keaveney, D., O'Riordan, C.: Abstract model of a real time strategy game. Technical report, nuig-it-011008, National University of Ireland, Galway (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kemmerling, M., Ackermann, N., Beume, N., Preuss, M., Uellenbeck, S., Walz, W.: Is human-like and well playing contradictory for diplomacy bots? In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG 2009), pp. 209–216. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kemmerling, M., Ackermann, N., Preuss, M.: Nested look-ahead evolutionary algorithm based planning for a believable diplomacy bot. In: Di Chio, C., et al. (eds.) Applications of Evolutionary Computation—EvoApplicatons 2011: EvoCOMPLEX, EvoGAMES, EvoIASP, EvoINTELLIGENCE, EvoNUM, and EvoSTOC, Torino, 27–29 April 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6624, pp. 83–92. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kraus, S., Lehmann, D.J.: Designing and building a negotiating automated agent. Comput. Intell. 11, 132–171 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Livingstone, D.: Turing’s test and believable AI in games. Comput. Entertain. 4(1), 6 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loeb, D.E.: Challenges in multi-player gaming by computers. The Diplomatic Pouch Zine (S1995M) (1995). http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S1995M/Loeb/Project.html
  17. 17.
    Loeb, D.E.: The observation module. The Diplomatic Pouch Zine (S1995R) (1995). http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S1995R/Loeb/Observe.html
  18. 18.
    Luhmann, N.: A Sociological Theory of Law. Taylor& Francis, London (1985)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Premack, D.G., Woodruff, G.: Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav. Brain Sci. 1, 515–526 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ribeiro, J.A., Mariano, P., Seabra Lopes, L.: Darkblade: a program that plays diplomacy. In: Seabra Lopes, L., Lau, N., Mariano, L.M., Rocha, P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Progress in Artificial Intelligence (EPIA 2009), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5816, pp. 485–496. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shaheed, J.: Creating a diplomat. Master’s Thesis, Imperial College, London (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shapiro, A., Fuchs, G., Levinson, R.: Learning a game strategy using patternweights and self-play. In: Schaeffer, J., Müller, M., Björnsson, Y. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computers and Games (CG 2002), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2883. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Turing, A.M.: Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 59, 433–460 (1950)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Hal, J.: Diplomacy AI—Albert. http://sites.google.com/site/diplomacyai/ (2010)
  25. 25.
    Webb, A., Chin, J., Wilkins, T., Payce, J., Dedoyard, V.: Automated negotiation in the game of diplomacy. http://www.daide.org.uk/external/TheDiplominator.pdf (2008)
  26. 26.
    Windsor, P.D.: What’s your point. The Diplomatic Pouch Zine (S1999M). http://www.diplom.org/Zine/S1999M/Windsor/point.html (1999)
  27. 27.
    Yannakakis, G.N., Hallam, J.: A generic approach for generating interesting interactive pac-man opponents. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG 2005), pp. 94–101. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yannakakis, G.N., Hallam, J.: Feature selection for capturing the experience of fun. In: Proceedings of the AIIDE’07 Workshop on Optimizing Player Satisfaction, pp. 37–42. AAAI (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Kemmerling
    • 1
  • Niels Ackermann
    • 2
  • Mike Preuss
    • 2
  1. 1.Robotics Research Institute, Section Information TechnologyTechnische Universität DortmundDortmundGermany
  2. 2.Chair of Algorithm Engineering, Computational Intelligence Group, Department of Computer ScienceTechnische Universität DortmundDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations