Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-ai: May 2002:
[freeciv-ai] Re: long-term ai goals

[freeciv-ai] Re: long-term ai goals

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Per I Mathisen <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <freeciv-ai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [freeciv-ai] Re: long-term ai goals
From: "Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 00:56:40 -0400

At 01:19 PM 02/05/24 +0200, Per I Mathisen wrote:
>On Thu, 23 May 2002, Ross W. Wetmore wrote:
>> If the server returns data which is not governed by the strict rules
>> it may introduce programmed/random errors into this data.
>A good AI is dependent on world governed by consistent rules, and adding
>random errors into this world may cause random errors in the code as well.
>Not a good idea.

Random errors in the code are a result of poor programming, period.

Any AI worth its salt has to deal with partial and inconsistent data.

Consistency is not a given element of the game. So the fundamental
assertion above is quite wrong and if AIs are programmed with this 
restriction they will be very limited and boringly predictable.

Note there is a difference between a Freeciv AI designed to provide a
challenge to a standalone player and the client agents project to do 
extensive but menial computations that assist human players. The latter 
are a completely different type of beast whose intelligence capabilities
are (hopefully) provided from an external source.

The idea of having the server manage the dissemination of the game
data under more complex rules than a binary FoW or total omniscience
system which are the current two options, is in fact *very* good for
a number of reasons. 

It can be the same advantage you give to handicapped human players, 
i.e those that can't deal with full FoW. Using random reliability 
beyond the strict FoW rules, can also make for a very challenging 
game for even good human players. It also adds a note of realism.

Or to put it another way, while FoW is an interesting challenge for
most humans, FoW limitations are a far more restrictive element on the 
AI with no human ability to learn and intuit conditions over multiple 
years of experience. The human can guess to produce missing data or 
choose strategies to handle imperfect knowledge.

The AI is not allowed to even *think* about tiles that are *unknown*
under the current FoW implementation which is a significantly onerous 
restriction not placed on humans. By the current games rules for the
AI, humans cheat.

And full capability to intuit missing data and learn techniques and 
atrategies over multiple games is years away from Freeciv. The 
suggestion that the AI has an equal chance here is pure rubbish.


So the question is, do you relax the FoW implementation in controlled
(i.e. optional) ways that provide game balance, do you have some other
strategy to deal with the issue, or do you continue to just make rude
noises that will keep Freeciv Artificial Intelligence an oxymoron for
years :-?


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]