View more

View more

View more

Image of the Day Submit

IOTD | Top Screenshots

The latest, straight to your Inbox.

Subscribe to GameDev.net Direct to receive the latest updates and exclusive content.

Designing AI for Quoridor

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

35 replies to this topic

Posted 05 September 2012 - 07:33 AM

I was thinking that this shouldn't be that big of a problem given a decent A* implementation. Brute forcing it shouldn't be that big of a deal. *shrug*
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

#22Álvaro  Members

Posted 05 September 2012 - 08:23 AM

I was thinking that this shouldn't be that big of a problem given a decent A* implementation. Brute forcing it shouldn't be that big of a deal. *shrug*

I am not sure what you have in mind. This is a two-player game, so some form of tree search is probably required to play it well. A* won't do much more than compute how far away you are from the goal right now, which I do many many times in a search.

Which reminds me... I didn't even use A* for pathfinding! I started with some dead simple find-all-distances-to-goal-and-pick-the-number-where-the-pawn-sits method, and I didn't bother substituting it by something faster. I could compute the distance-to-goal map for each player at the root (or at nodes with high enough depth left) and use them as the heuristic in A*. Since walls only ever get added, that is an admissible heuristic (i.e., an underestimate of the true distance). Maybe I'll try that tonight.

#23Wizuriel  Members

Posted 05 September 2012 - 08:36 AM

Now I'm really curious what I did wrong for mine to take hours to do depth 4 searching.

I've tried shrinking the board down to 5x5 with fewer walls to test it and I'm positive my algorithms are all working correctly (if not quickly).

In a nutshell what I do is send the current view to my function.
-Try to move pawn each direction (check if way is blocked by a wall, if not you can move, if the node your moving has the opponent I get his move directions and add then to yours (since opponent square won't see your piece as his it returns that your square is not valid so doesn't infinite loop).
-Try to place wall on each square
-When placing a wall I check that it doesn't hit another wall or go between a wall (My wall pieces have a start and end point making it pretty easy to tell the difference between 1 wall and between 2 walls which would be legal)
-If wall position doesn't hit a wall do A* search on both player and opponent. I do this until I find a path for each of them (so min of once per pawn, max of board length), if both still have exits the wall is good.

run all those children in the alpha beta function

#24Álvaro  Members

Posted 05 September 2012 - 08:42 AM

Make sure you are not doing any dynamic memory allocation at all. I don't know how feasible this is with languages like C# and Java, but in C or C++ it's fairly straight forward.

-When placing a wall I check that it doesn't hit another wall or go between a wall (My wall pieces have a start and end point making it pretty easy to tell the difference between 1 wall and between 2 walls which would be legal)

Ooops! I guess I am implementing that rule wrong. I don't allow a wall that crosses something that blocks perpendicularly, whether it's a single wall or the place where two join. I don't think that should matter a whole lot, though. More work for tonight.

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:26 AM

I was thinking that this shouldn't be that big of a problem given a decent A* implementation. Brute forcing it shouldn't be that big of a deal. *shrug*

I am not sure what you have in mind. This is a two-player game, so some form of tree search is probably required to play it well. A* won't do much more than compute how far away you are from the goal right now, which I do many many times in a search.

Proper placement of walls is based on the combined ideas of
• Lengthening the other player's path
• Not doing an illegal move that blocks a complete path
Obviously, the longer you can make his path without affecting your own, the better. This is where A* comes in. You want to know which of your potential wall placements will do the most damage without being illegal or making your own situation markedly worse. That is the fitness of your decision.

Now you can certainly try to do it all the way to the end (i.e. full tree search to leaf nodes) but the branching factor does get annoying. The good news is that there are a finite number of walls (20) so that while the maximum depth may be deeper than that (you don't always have to place a wall), there are only 20 plys where you really have significant branching because of a new wall.

Even searching a few layers in (which is what most human players would do anyway) will provide enough insight to know if/when/where to place walls.

Again, having a screaming A* routine expedites the search through the possibility space.
Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm LLC

Professional consultant on game AI, mathematical modeling, simulation modeling
Co-advisor of the GDC AI Summit
Co-founder of the AI Game Programmers Guild
Author of the book, Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI

Blogs I write:
IA News - What's happening at IA | IA on AI - AI news and notes | Post-Play'em - Observations on AI of games I play

"Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

#26Álvaro  Members

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:34 AM

Obviously, the longer you can make his path without affecting your own, the better. This is where A* comes in. You want to know which of your potential wall placements will do the most damage without being illegal or making your own situation markedly worse. That is the fitness of your decision.

Yes, that's effectively a depth-1 search in my program. It's already an interesting opponent, but depth-2 is probably the minimum level at which it is not very easy to beat.

I haven't profiled my program, but I think you are right: Having a really fast A* implementation will probably speed things up a lot.

By the way, the large branching factor is an issue, but it's not a deal breaker for alphabeta. In games like go the dealbreaker is that there is no obvious evaluation function to start with. Luckily, the difference in distance to goal between the players serves that role nicely.

#27Wizuriel  Members

Posted 05 September 2012 - 12:46 PM

Make sure you are not doing any dynamic memory allocation at all. I don't know how feasible this is with languages like C# and Java, but in C or C++ it's fairly straight forward.

Right now everything I do used dynamic memory allocation and truth be told my classes aren't memory efficient (especially for debugging I like tracking some extra information to make sure stuff is working), but would that really be the difference between you're alpha beta pruning taking seconds and mine taking hours?

#28Álvaro  Members

Posted 05 September 2012 - 01:01 PM

Right now everything I do used dynamic memory allocation and truth be told my classes aren't memory efficient (especially for debugging I like tracking some extra information to make sure stuff is working), but would that really be the difference between you're alpha beta pruning taking seconds and mine taking hours?

Of course, you might have a bug somewhere. But needless memory allocation can easily result in a factor of 100 slowdown. The problem is that everything in an alpha-beta searcher is part of the "inner loop", in some sense. Keeping an eye on performance is very important in this context.

I'll add some node counts to my code so we can compare mine and yours and see if I am just getting more nodes per second. It could be that I am also visiting many fewer nodes than you are, which would probably indicate a problem with your alpha-beta implementation.

#29Wizuriel  Members

Posted 05 September 2012 - 02:38 PM

Right now everything I do used dynamic memory allocation and truth be told my classes aren't memory efficient (especially for debugging I like tracking some extra information to make sure stuff is working), but would that really be the difference between you're alpha beta pruning taking seconds and mine taking hours?

Of course, you might have a bug somewhere. But needless memory allocation can easily result in a factor of 100 slowdown. The problem is that everything in an alpha-beta searcher is part of the "inner loop", in some sense. Keeping an eye on performance is very important in this context.

I'll add some node counts to my code so we can compare mine and yours and see if I am just getting more nodes per second. It could be that I am also visiting many fewer nodes than you are, which would probably indicate a problem with your alpha-beta implementation.

Would be appreciated.

Going off my code using standard board and players starting in the middle
P1) initial position has 131 children. Assume player 1 moves
P2) initial position (based off player 1 moving) has 131 children
P1) First child from the 131 children returns 132 more children
P2) P2's first child also has 132 children

This first branch assumes both players are just moving directly towards their desired goal

So yeah I should find a way that you can't move backwards for the children (by backwards I mean to a position already done by one of the earlier children). Easiest way I can think of would be to have each view have a link back to it's parents and make sure the new view is not equal to any of the parents. Would the extra memory usage be worth the less nodes to view?

Edited by Wizuriel, 05 September 2012 - 02:39 PM.

#30Álvaro  Members

Posted 05 September 2012 - 07:24 PM

One important thing that helps performance is that I don't make any copies of the board. There is a single board (I pass references to it around, but it could actually be made global), and the search function makes moves on it and then undoes them carefully. Here's my actual search function:
int negamax(Board &b, int alpha, int beta, int depth) {
int current_score = b.get_score();
if (depth <= 0 || abs(current_score) >= 400000)
return current_score;

Move moves[132];
int n_moves = b.generate_moves(moves);
int old_pawn_pos = b.get_pawn_pos(); // I need to remember where the pawn for the side to move was, so I can return it there if I move it.
for (int i=0; i<n_moves; ++i) {
b.make_move(moves[i]);
int score = -negamax(b, -beta, -alpha, depth-1);
b.undo_move(moves[i], old_pawn_pos);
if (score > alpha) {
alpha = score;
if (score >= beta)
break;
}
}
return alpha;
}

Once I add move sorting and transposition tables it probably won't be as readable.

As you see, the array of moves is on the stack (moves are small) and I don't need to do any allocation anywhere.

#31Álvaro  Members

Posted 05 September 2012 - 07:42 PM

This is some output from my program when searching from the starting position. It might help you get an idea of whether your search is looking at too many positions, and how much slower than mine it is. The node count is actually how many times Board::make_move has been called since the search started. I search depth 1, 2, 3... until I run out of time. This is running on my laptop:
New best move:  side=0 depth=1 move=25  score=12 nodes=1 time=0.00011301 nps=8848.74
Depth complete: side=0 depth=1 move= 25  score=12 nodes=131 time=0.00980401 nps=13361.9
New best move:  side=0 depth=2 move=25  score=10 nodes=263 time=0.0124841 nps=21066.8
Depth complete: side=0 depth=2 move= 25  score=10 nodes=524 time=0.018996 nps=27584.8
New best move:  side=0 depth=3 move=25  score=10 nodes=1046 time=0.0243661 nps=42928.4
Depth complete: side=0 depth=3 move= 25  score=10 nodes=17980 time=0.134464 nps=133716
New best move:  side=0 depth=4 move=25  score=8 nodes=51817 time=0.318163 nps=162863
Depth complete: side=0 depth=4 move= 25  score=8 nodes=86064 time=0.521238 nps=165115
New best move:  side=0 depth=5 move=25  score=12 nodes=200464 time=1.14466 nps=175130
Depth complete: side=0 depth=5 move= 25  score=12 nodes=2310718 time=13.1338 nps=175937
New best move:  side=0 depth=6 move=25  score=8 nodes=6715517 time=37.9794 nps=176820
Depth complete: side=0 depth=6 move= 25  score=8 nodes=11346684 time=65.374 nps=173566

So I am searching around 170K nodes per second, and finishing a depth-4 search took a total of 86K nodes.

#32Wizuriel  Members

Posted 05 September 2012 - 11:42 PM

Did you do any optimization to get those numbers?

My depth 2 on the starting position is exploring about 17k nodes taking about 46 seconds to do so :S

Edited by Wizuriel, 05 September 2012 - 11:52 PM.

#33Álvaro  Members

Posted 06 September 2012 - 12:36 AM

Did you do any optimization to get those numbers?

No, nothing special. My more ordering is something like North, South, East, West, place horizontal walls, place vertical walls. Not really anything smart.

My depth 2 on the starting position is exploring about 17k nodes taking about 46 seconds to do so :S

17k nodes is essentially the full size of the tree, which means that your alpha-beta search is not producing any beta cuts. That doesn't seem right. Regarding the nodes per second (where you are getting something like a slowdown by a factor of 500), it's a matter of picking the right language (I would argue you should use something low-levelish like C or C++ for this task) and understanding a couple of things about what operations are cheap and which ones are expensive.

By the way, my pathfinding function still needs improvement, and I expect to get more nodes per second that way. Transposition tables and some move-ordering heuristics should allow me to search deeper for a given number of nodes.

Edited by alvaro, 06 September 2012 - 12:36 AM.

#34Wizuriel  Members

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:06 PM

edit: wish I could delete this post. Going try and re do the search by scratch and hope I get a better result this time

Edited by Wizuriel, 06 September 2012 - 02:39 PM.

#35jefferytitan  Members

Posted 06 September 2012 - 03:18 PM

I'm glad to see that I was looking in roughly the right directions, memory allocation and inner loop speed. It's a shame that the pruning isn't working right, I must admit that's not my area of expertise. Overall don't get down that your first cut didn't go so well. Every coder makes mistakes. A friend once decided to write his own sort. Unfortunately he forgot what with handy things like indexer operators in C# that the underlying datatype was a linked list. His solution ended up being O(n^4) and choked on around 10,000 items. Focus on the items to take away from this: frequent memory allocation isn't cheap, everything in the inner loop counts, check that your pruning is working correctly, and learn more about profiling.

#36Wizuriel  Members

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:54 AM

Sorry for kind of necroing this, but I just managed to get negamax working (correctly) and while my program is still slow (3-5min a turn), it's still a huge improvement over my 1hour initial time.

Still trying to cut back on my A* searches and find general improvements, but a working copy has been put up at: http://thetaraday.somee.com/Games?id=7 and wanted to thank everyone here for the help.

Old topic!

Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.