Adversarial Search

Outline
Adversarial Search Game Theory Formal Definition of Game Optimal decisions - pruning Imperfect, real-time decisions

ADVERSARIAL SEARCH
Competitive environments,in which the agents goals are in conflict,give rise to adversarial search problems often known as games.

Games Mathematical Game Theory,a branch of economics,views any multiagent environment as a game Agents are cooperative or competitive. AI games are,two-player, turn-taking and fully observable environments utility values at the end of the game are always equal and opposite. For example,if one player wins the game of chess(+1),the other player necessarily loses(-1). It is this opposition between the agents utility functions that makes the situation adversarial.

Formal Definition of Game

Consider the games (Tic-tac-toe) with two players,whom we will call MAX and MIN. MAX moves first,and then they take turns moving until the game is over. At the end of the game, points are awarded to the winning player and penalties are given to the loser. A game can be formally defined as a search problem with the following components :

o The initial state,which includes the board position and identifies the player to move. o A successor function,which returns a list of (move,state) pairs,each indicating a legal move and the resulting state. o A terminal test,which describes when the game is over. States where the game has ended are called terminal states. oA utility function (also called an objective function or payoff function),which give a numeric value for the terminal states. In chess,the outcome is a win,loss,or draw,with values +1,-1,or 0.

Games vs. search problems

"Unpredictable" opponent specifying a move for every possible opponent reply Time limits unlikely to find goal, must approximate

Game tree (2-player, deterministic, turns)

Minimax
Perfect play for deterministic games Idea: choose move to position with highest minimax value = best achievable payoff against best play E.g., 2-ply game:

function minimax(node,depth)

if depth <= 0 then

-- positive values are good for the maximizing player -- negative values are good for the minimizing player

return objective_value(node)
end -- maximizing player is (+1) -- minimizing player is (-1) function integer minimax(node, depth) if node is a terminal node or depth <= 0: return the heuristic value of node = - for child in node:

# evaluation is identical for both players

= max(, -minimax(child, depth-1)) return

Minimax algorithm

Properties of minimax
Complete? Yes (if tree is finite) Optimal? Yes (against an optimal opponent)

Time complexity? O(bm)

Space complexity? O(bm) (depth-first exploration)

For chess, b 35, m 100 for "reasonable" games exact solution completely infeasible

- pruning example

- pruning example

- pruning example

- pruning example

- pruning example

Properties of -
Pruning does not affect final result Good move ordering improves effectiveness of pruning With "perfect ordering," time complexity = O(bm/2)
doubles depth of search

A simple example of the value of reasoning about which computations are relevant (a form of metareasoning)

Why is it called -?
is the value of the best (i.e., highestvalue) choice found so far at any choice point along the path for max If v is worse than , max will avoid it
prune that branch

The - algorithm

The - algorithm

Resource limits
Suppose we have 100 secs, explore 104 nodes/sec 106 nodes per move

Standard approach:

cutoff test:
e.g., depth limit (perhaps add quiescence search)

evaluation function

Evaluation functions
For chess, typically linear weighted sum of features Eval(s) = w1 f1(s) + w2 f2(s) + + wn fn(s)

e.g., w1 = 9 with f1(s) = (number of white queens) (number of black queens), etc.

Cutting off search

MinimaxCutoff is identical to MinimaxValue except
1. Terminal? is replaced by Cutoff? 2. Utility is replaced by Eval 3.

Does it work in practice?

bm = 106, b=35 m=4

4-ply lookahead is a hopeless chess player!

4-ply human novice

Deterministic games in practice

Checkers: Chinook ended 40-year-reign of human world champion Marion Tinsley in 1994. Used a precomputed endgame database defining perfect play for all positions involving 8 or fewer pieces on the board, a total of 444 billion positions.

Chess: Deep Blue defeated human world champion Garry Kasparov in a six-game match in 1997. Deep Blue searches 200 million positions per second, uses very sophisticated evaluation, and undisclosed methods for extending some lines of search up to 40 ply. Othello: human champions refuse to compete against computers, who are too good. Go: human champions refuse to compete against computers, who are too bad. In go, b > 300, so most programs use pattern knowledge bases to suggest plausible moves.

Summary
Games are fun to work on! They illustrate several important points about AI perfection is unattainable must approximate good idea to think about what to think about