Advertisement

Priority Level Planning in Kriegspiel

  • Paolo Ciancarini
  • Andrea Gasparro
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7522)

Abstract

Back in 1950, Shannon introduced planning in board games like Chess as a selective approach, where the main idea is to select specific branches of the game tree that satisfy certain conditions. He contrasted this approach with brute force Minimax-like methods, based on an exhaustive search of the game tree, that aims to select the best path inside a given search horizon. Historically, the brute force approach won hands down against planning in complex games such as Chess, as the strongest Chess programs nowadays all exploit brute force algorithms. However, planning is still interesting and even necessary in some game-playing domains, for instance based on incomplete information, where there is no way to evaluate precisely or even build the game tree. In this paper we describe a technique that produced positive results in Kriegspiel, a variant of Chess played as an incomplete information game. Our main result is the definition of an algorithm for combining MonteCarlo search with planning; we tested the algorithm on a strong Kriegspiel program based on MonteCarlo search, and obtained a clear improvement.

References

  1. 1.
    Bolognesi, A., Ciancarini, P.: Searching over Metapositions in Kriegspiel. In: van den Herik, J., Netanyahu, N. (eds.) 4th Int. Conf. on Computer and Games, RamatGan, Israel (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campbell, M., Marsland, T.: A comparison of minimax tree search algorithms. Artificial Intelligence 20(4), 347–367 (1983)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cazenave, T.: A Phantom-Go Program. In: van den Herik, H.J., Hsu, S.-C., Hsu, T.-s., Donkers, H.H.L.M(J.) (eds.) CG 2005. LNCS, vol. 4250, pp. 120–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ciancarini, P., DallaLibera, F., Maran, F.: Decision Making under Uncertainty: A Rational Approach to Kriegspiel. In: van den Herik, J., Uiterwijk, J. (eds.) Advances in Computer Chess 8, pp. 277–298. Univ. of Rulimburg (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ciancarini, P., Favini, G.: Representing Kriegspiel States with Metapositions. In: Proc. 20th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), India, pp. 2450–2455 (January 2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ciancarini, P., Favini, G.: Monte Carlo Tree Search in Kriegspiel. Artificial Intelligence 174(11), 670–684 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Chung, M., Buro, M., Schaeffer, J.: Monte Carlo planning in RTS games. In: Kendall, G., Lucas, S. (eds.) Proc. IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games, Colchester, Essex, pp. 117–124. IEEE Computer Society (April 2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perla, P.: The Art of Wargaming. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sakuta, M.: Deterministic Solving of Problems with Uncertainty. PhD thesis, Shizuoka University, Japan (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shannon, C.: Programming a computer for playing Chess. Philosophical Magazine (Series 7), 256–275 (1950)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thompson, K.: Computer Chess Strenght. In: Clarke, M. (ed.) Advances in Computer Chess 3, pp. 55–56. Pergamon (1982)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zermelo, E.: On an Application of Set Theory to the Theory of the Game of Chess. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Mathematicians, Cambridge, UK, pp. 501–504 (1913)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Ciancarini
    • 1
  • Andrea Gasparro
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversity of BolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations