Battle of attrition?

Say you’re on a diet.  So you take five regular boxes of donuts, remove the donuts, then you put the donuts into two large boxes.  So far, you’re great.  Because all the donuts are still in boxes, see?

But if you do end up eating all the donuts, it won’t matter if they started out in five boxes or two boxes.

Two boxes are easier to carry, than five.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Bunnies……There is no . . . holy grail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxKIJTb3Hg

Once you can provide for a general solution ie some ‘metric’ for a given ‘game state’ then and only then do you enhance this with specific opening move sequences.

That is, if I understand you correctly, you are saying the program should be able to look at a board and figure out what to do in a general sense.  Only after the program has this general sense can it be effectively refined to carry out specific strategies.

What I am saying, though, is that the program does NOT require the ability to look at a board and figure out what to do in a general sense.  I am not thinking about actual intelligence, only a reasonable facsimile.  That is, functionally Weizenbaum’s ELIZA approach.  Instead of programming a computer that first understands how to speak, then training it to speak as a Rogerian psychotherapist, simply program the computer to speak similarly to a Rogerian psychotherapist in the first place.

–

So before I posted the above, I found two new replies had been posted.

What intrigues me is not hand coding a strategy that is moderately effective but always makes the same ‘mistakes’.  I am intrigued with an actual machine learning system whereby it ‘learns’ how to play and perhaps uncovers hidden strategies.  Such a system would be a benefit to play testing new games and changes to existing games.

I say whether it intrigues you or not is not the question.  The question is what is the best use of available resources?  If I am correct that resources are extremely limited, then programming will have to be done in the limited fashion that I describe, precluding a general revolution in the state of AI development.

@Gargantua:

Two boxes are easier to carry, than five.

Yes, but would you rather have five boxes of donuts or two boxes of donuts?

It’s just a harmless little bunny….

Whether it intrigues me or not certainly is the question from my perspective if I am to do the project.  Machine learning is my interest, a non-learning game playing algorithm is what is required most likely.

‘General Solutions’ to specific problems should always be the primary objective so your solution can be  re-used in other applications.  It’s not always feasible of course.  Then ‘domain specific’ information can then be added to enhance choices made.  It’s machine learning 101.  You are absolutely correct in that a simpler solution might just work fine.  A game playing algorithm can be simple and effective without ever being able to learn, that is what currently exists.  Before I shoot my mouth off too much, I would need to invest time to see how the existing wheel works before I think too deeply about re-inventing it, assuming I am even capable and able to spend the effort both of which are questionable.

@Bunnies, maybe the programmer is a pervert and if you give him some hallucinogens and a hamster… there’s only one place he’s gonna put him, and it ain’t on any tile.

And I’d rather have a box of donut holes. They’ll be lighter.

@Guppers:

sooooo…. I’m not upset that the thread has gone tangential (that’s not a passive aggressive way of saying I am upset)  but you guys could at least give me a pat on the back for winning my first human game :(

Here’s a pat on the back and a box of donut holes.

Actual donuts are reserved for players that can inflict permanent psychological scarring at forty paces.

gets up and looks around

“Nope, looks like the thread is still completely hijacked”

lays down again on the net and takes a nap

……zzzzzzzzzzzzz

Seriously Guppers - “play for the money” was good advice.

If you have a few weeks of play against an AI you would probably know the power of a superior stack and the advantage of either taking and holding territories, or trading them cost effectively.
Understanding this simple balance in the game will win against many novice human opponents.

I have played several multiplayer games with allies who where missing basic understanding of the game. In those cases, games where easily lost if UK or US lost an atlantic fleet.

So two pieces of advice:
1. play cost effectively (buy plenty of infantry)
2. Do not lose the fleet

If you want to keep an IPC advantage over an axis opponent, Africa may be important in a long term game.
Targeting western europe from the beginning of a game is not a good strategy IMO. Get a shuck going landing in either Africa or Norway/Karelia/Archangel to support USSR. If (when) Germany exposes a weak territory (Western, Southern Europe or maybe Germany itself) then do the shift.

Axis and Allies is not chess.  But there are some concepts that are common to the two, like material versus position.  Some games are material and involve a lot of infantry and slow pushes.  Some games are positional and involve a lot of tanks or fighters or bombers and industrial complexes going all over the place and killing stuff very quickly.

Targeting West Europe is great for the Allies at the beginning if it can be done conveniently, because it fuels UK’s fleet defense and prevents G2 fighters on Western Europe, which sets the tone for Axis control of Africa.

Major shifts to Western and/or Southern Europe are not what I prefer to do as Allies against a decent Axis player.  It’s a material versus position question.