Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-ai: June 2003:
[freeciv-ai] [Fwd: Re: Re: learning from experience]

[freeciv-ai] [Fwd: Re: Re: learning from experience]

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-ai@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [freeciv-ai] [Fwd: Re: Re: learning from experience]
From: Jeremy Adams <caveman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 10:02:09 -0400

Sorry, my original email below didn't go directly to the list... i'll try that again... ;)

I thought of this issue as well, and although I haven't provided any code so far to Freeciv, my thoughts on this were thus:

If a "learning AI" were implemented, it would best be implemented by provided an external "trainer" program that can track and statistically analyze the research trends, build trends, tax/science/luxury adjustment trends, and military trends as it tracks several human players playing against the in-game AI, then some more precise values and equations could be determined that would more accurately match the human's game strategy which could then be plugged back into the existing AI code. The "trainer" program could watch the in-game AI play itself to refine it's equation values to more equally match the values of the in-game winner, etc.

No small feat for sure to program such an advanced system, but "training" the AI in this way would also make the game at least playable since there would be some amount of "training" that the AI had gone through to act in the way it would in-game, but at the same time no single 'illogical' move by a human player would break the in-game AI as it's values would have already been determined and hard-coded and therefore not subject to the sometimes inconsistent turn-by-turn tactics of the human player. (This would also allow some amount of 'playability' tweaking so that the AI was not an impossible to defeat foe for newbies)


Ross Wetmore wrote:

Per I. Mathisen wrote:

In any case, there is a problem: Changing context. A strategy that works
fine in, say, gen 1, may not work as well in gen2. Some slight changes in
server options might change context enough to throw its accumulated
weights into question.

The problem with this is one of poor implementation. The AI needs a feedback loop that can update weights or switch strategies (alternate way of phrasing
update weights) on a timeframe less than a game or release cycle.

What you describe would be quite useful in order to optimize the AI. We
could put researched weights into the rulesets. However, I am pessimistic about the state of AI research when it comes to being able to write an AI
that can figure out on the fly and on its own new strategies and read
something meaningful into accumulated statistical data. But I would be
happy to be proven wrong.

  - Per

Again, if the implementation is explicitly coded in fine detail, then you are
correct that this is going to be a total failure.

The solution is more successful if it is developed using a fuzzy feedback
flavour. Small tactical operations might be handled in a micro-managed
fashion, but overall strategy should not be explicitly planned. Rather it
should be handled as a weighted selection of responses to changing game
state where feedback parameters adjust the weighting selection on a chosen

At any given moment, one makes the best selection on the instantaneous set of strategic weights. But over a longer period, one adjusts or reselects the strategic imperatives based on events/needs/success/failure feedback decisions.


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