Risk compared to Backgammon

Talk about all things related to Conquer Club

Moderators: Global Moderators, Discussions Team

Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby AslanTheKing on Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:49 pm

premio53 wrote:I might add for those who aren't familiar with Backgammon that computers don't win every game but over a series of games (called matches) computers will almost always win even against the top human players. I don't see why the same thing couldn't happen on a given map on Conquer Club that is obviously more complicated than Doodle.


I win every game in backgammon against any computer, since i know what dice the computer will throw,
but this strategy is time-consuming , still works, i let him take as many stones as possible and close his home, and slowly i have all stones in my home,
and the computer loses, always, best regards, i think u have played backgammon many years but are not the best backgammon player,
best wishes aslan
I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy´s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:

Long live the Army Of Kings !


AOK

show: AOK Rocks
User avatar
Captain AslanTheKing
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:36 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Medals: 35
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (1)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:09 pm

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Secondly, now that min-max fails you have to derive a evaluation function for intermediate nodes. This seems to me EXTREMELY more difficult to do in 6 player risk than in chess. For instance, is it a good thing to have 30% of the armies with all of the 6 players still alive? Or does it mean they will now gang up on you ?
Is it a good thing to have a large bonus? Or does it's size assure that you'll lose it before your next turn.
How does the relative capability of the opponents factor into these kinds of decisions? What about diplomacy, should you be able to offer truces?


Well, sure, I'm not advocating a Risk AI for more than two players. But I also don't think these things are as problematic as you suggest, because to some extent you can empirically determine how to weight things instead of trying to figure that out computationally.
User avatar
Lieutenant Metsfanmax
Head Thinker
Head Thinker
 
Posts: 3692
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm
Location: NY
Medals: 40
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1) General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (2)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby nippersean on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:39 pm

Well my thoughts - if a computer can beat Kasparov, then they have an outside chance of beating GLG.

Seriously, with enough resources a program would beat (be better) than everyone at this game. Without a doubt.

It is far more difficult to assess a chess position at the end of the algorithm than to calculate a 6 player KO. Always when the machine comes to the end of brute force it will have to assess who is better. This is way more difficicult in chess than it is in CC.

Difference is IBM unlikely to spend $1Bn+ on a CC program. I think it's rather silly to say CC / risk is more complex than chess.
Colonel nippersean
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 7:47 am
Medals: 66
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2)
Tournament Achievement (18) General Achievement (4) Clan Achievement (15)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby premio53 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:40 pm

AslanTheKing wrote:
premio53 wrote:I might add for those who aren't familiar with Backgammon that computers don't win every game but over a series of games (called matches) computers will almost always win even against the top human players. I don't see why the same thing couldn't happen on a given map on Conquer Club that is obviously more complicated than Doodle.


I win every game in backgammon against any computer, since i know what dice the computer will throw,
but this strategy is time-consuming , still works, i let him take as many stones as possible and close his home, and slowly i have all stones in my home,
and the computer loses, always, best regards, i think u have played backgammon many years but are not the best backgammon player,
best wishes aslan

There are many weak programs out there. Download a copy of GnuBackgammon and even using manual dice it will wipe the floor with you.
Major premio53
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:09 pm
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby AslanTheKing on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:43 pm

premio53 wrote:
AslanTheKing wrote:
premio53 wrote:I might add for those who aren't familiar with Backgammon that computers don't win every game but over a series of games (called matches) computers will almost always win even against the top human players. I don't see why the same thing couldn't happen on a given map on Conquer Club that is obviously more complicated than Doodle.


I win every game in backgammon against any computer, since i know what dice the computer will throw,
but this strategy is time-consuming , still works, i let him take as many stones as possible and close his home, and slowly i have all stones in my home,
and the computer loses, always, best regards, i think u have played backgammon many years but are not the best backgammon player,
best wishes aslan

There are many weak programs out there. Download a copy of GnuBackgammon and even using manual dice it will wipe the floor with you.


i am looking forward to it, i let u know whats the weakside of gnu backgammon, if u have a download site it would be helpfull,
just to make sure im downloading the right game.
I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy´s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:

Long live the Army Of Kings !


AOK

show: AOK Rocks
User avatar
Captain AslanTheKing
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:36 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Medals: 35
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (1)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby premio53 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:47 pm

Just google GnuBackgammon. It is a free program. One of the strongest in the world.
Major premio53
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:09 pm
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby premio53 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:49 pm

The world Backgammon matches may go up to 21 or so using the cube but I doubt you will win even a 5 point match.
Major premio53
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:09 pm
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby AslanTheKing on Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:55 pm

just watch this movie, to understand what i meant with my longturn strategy, its similar


http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3734033/gnu_backgammon/
I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy´s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:

Long live the Army Of Kings !


AOK

show: AOK Rocks
User avatar
Captain AslanTheKing
 
Posts: 1019
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:36 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Medals: 35
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (4) General Achievement (1)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Haggis_McMutton on Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:28 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, sure, I'm not advocating a Risk AI for more than two players. But I also don't think these things are as problematic as you suggest, because to some extent you can empirically determine how to weight things instead of trying to figure that out computationally.


Yeah, it's definitely a lot more tractable for 1 vs 1, though probably still not trivial.

I genuinely don't think anyone could make a world-class 6 player risk bot atm (well maybe if they sink a couple years of research into it). I base this mostly on the fact that there isn't a world class poker player out there for large-ish tables and poker is
a. probably simpler than risk
b. potentially worth a lot of money if someone figures this out.
Highest score: 3063; Highest position: 67;
Winner of {World War II tournament, -team 2010 Skilled Diversity, [FuN||Chewy]-[XII] USA};
8-3-7
User avatar
Major Haggis_McMutton
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:32 am
Medals: 28
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3) General Achievement (4)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Kaskavel on Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:37 pm

nippersean wrote:Well my thoughts - if a computer can beat Kasparov, then they have an outside chance of beating GLG.

Seriously, with enough resources a program would beat (be better) than everyone at this game. Without a doubt.

It is far more difficult to assess a chess position at the end of the algorithm than to calculate a 6 player KO. Always when the machine comes to the end of brute force it will have to assess who is better. This is way more difficicult in chess than it is in CC.

Difference is IBM unlikely to spend $1Bn+ on a CC program. I think it's rather silly to say CC / risk is more complex than chess.


It is not accurate to state that strongest computer defeats strongest human in chess at this point of history. In all the 3 last matchs played (the one Kasparov won 3.5-2.5, the one Kasparov lost 3.5-2.5 and the last one Kramnik lost 3.5-2.5), the human player managed to win at least one game. And the last match was 2.5-2.5, about to end in a tie with the last game being a completely drawn position when Kramnik made a remarkable mistake for his level (blundering checkmate in one move) which is made once or twice in a lifetime for such a strong player. Anyway, the point is that computers have a stable level of performance in all games, calculating millions of moves. Humans do not. A single mistake will lead to defeat against machines. But if on their best performance, strongest human chess players can still defeat computers, which means both not making mistakes AND playing superior strategy, this means computers have not bypassed humans yet. At least for a few more years, lol
Brigadier Kaskavel
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:08 pm
Medals: 42
Conqueror Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (6)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby premio53 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:16 am

Kaskavel wrote:
nippersean wrote:Well my thoughts - if a computer can beat Kasparov, then they have an outside chance of beating GLG.

Seriously, with enough resources a program would beat (be better) than everyone at this game. Without a doubt.

It is far more difficult to assess a chess position at the end of the algorithm than to calculate a 6 player KO. Always when the machine comes to the end of brute force it will have to assess who is better. This is way more difficicult in chess than it is in CC.

Difference is IBM unlikely to spend $1Bn+ on a CC program. I think it's rather silly to say CC / risk is more complex than chess.


It is not accurate to state that strongest computer defeats strongest human in chess at this point of history. In all the 3 last matchs played (the one Kasparov won 3.5-2.5, the one Kasparov lost 3.5-2.5 and the last one Kramnik lost 3.5-2.5), the human player managed to win at least one game. And the last match was 2.5-2.5, about to end in a tie with the last game being a completely drawn position when Kramnik made a remarkable mistake for his level (blundering checkmate in one move) which is made once or twice in a lifetime for such a strong player. Anyway, the point is that computers have a stable level of performance in all games, calculating millions of moves. Humans do not. A single mistake will lead to defeat against machines. But if on their best performance, strongest human chess players can still defeat computers, which means both not making mistakes AND playing superior strategy, this means computers have not bypassed humans yet. At least for a few more years, lol

The strongest human chess players are rated around 2800 elo. The top chess playing programs are now over 3200. The world chess champion would not stand a chane now. Chess Grandmasters no longer play against chess computers in matches because there is no point in it. They use computers to help prepare for matches against other humans.
Major premio53
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:09 pm
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Kaskavel on Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:33 am

premio53 wrote:
Kaskavel wrote:
nippersean wrote:Well my thoughts - if a computer can beat Kasparov, then they have an outside chance of beating GLG.

Seriously, with enough resources a program would beat (be better) than everyone at this game. Without a doubt.

It is far more difficult to assess a chess position at the end of the algorithm than to calculate a 6 player KO. Always when the machine comes to the end of brute force it will have to assess who is better. This is way more difficicult in chess than it is in CC.

Difference is IBM unlikely to spend $1Bn+ on a CC program. I think it's rather silly to say CC / risk is more complex than chess.


It is not accurate to state that strongest computer defeats strongest human in chess at this point of history. In all the 3 last matchs played (the one Kasparov won 3.5-2.5, the one Kasparov lost 3.5-2.5 and the last one Kramnik lost 3.5-2.5), the human player managed to win at least one game. And the last match was 2.5-2.5, about to end in a tie with the last game being a completely drawn position when Kramnik made a remarkable mistake for his level (blundering checkmate in one move) which is made once or twice in a lifetime for such a strong player. Anyway, the point is that computers have a stable level of performance in all games, calculating millions of moves. Humans do not. A single mistake will lead to defeat against machines. But if on their best performance, strongest human chess players can still defeat computers, which means both not making mistakes AND playing superior strategy, this means computers have not bypassed humans yet. At least for a few more years, lol

The strongest human chess players are rated around 2800 elo. The top chess playing programs are now over 3200. The world chess champion would not stand a chane now. Chess Grandmasters no longer play against chess computers in matches because there is no point in it. They use computers to help prepare for matches against other humans.


Probably, but that was not my point. My point is that although computers have a superior average performance, humans can still prevail in a game they show their top performance. Which in turn means that computers still make critical mistakes, at least in some kind of positions. Computers do not blunder, they have a stable performance at the rating you say, but humans' performance vary greatly, mainly because of the chance to find or miss critical tactics. And apparently they can still defeat computers in isolated games, although not in a match probably, when they perform their best. The next stage of computer evolution is the day we will have to accept that humans have 0% chance to defeat a computer in a single game and that computers do not make mistakes. At least not significant ones that could lead to a loss.
Computer preparation is part of every chesplayer agenda for 20 years. Doesnt mean much by itself. Examples like the Kramnik-Leko match on 2000 (I think), where one player prepares a position computer tells him he is winning and the opponent finds out, unprepared, over the board, thinking hard, that in fact the position is lost are still not uncommon. Opening novelties computers disapprove are still common. And the remarkable inability of computers to recognize drawing fortresses still leads to huge misevaluations.
Brigadier Kaskavel
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:08 pm
Medals: 42
Conqueror Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (6)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby Kaskavel on Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:37 am

In contrast, the american verion of checkers has been strongly refuted. This means that top computers can never lose a game, only win or draw. Computers will never theoriticaly succeed in that (get data info in all positions that can arise through optimal play) and still need some years to practicaly succeed in that
Brigadier Kaskavel
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:08 pm
Medals: 42
Conqueror Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (3) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (2) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (6)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby AndyDufresne on Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:03 am

What we really need to develop, is simply a Mechanical Turk for RISK!

Image


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25042
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Re: Risk compared to Backgammon

Postby premio53 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:30 pm

Kaskavel wrote:In contrast, the american verion of checkers has been strongly refuted. This means that top computers can never lose a game, only win or draw. Computers will never theoriticaly succeed in that (get data info in all positions that can arise through optimal play) and still need some years to practicaly succeed in that

I would say that for all practical purposes chess has been "solved" in the sense that I don't believe even the World Chess Champion would win one game out of a hundred against them today. Backgammon on the other hand, while computers are world class (GnuBackgammon is in the Top 5 of over 6000 rated Players on FIBS) the luck of the dice makes them beatable but by only the strongest human players. I would put Risk in the same category. While I believe a program could be developed that would conquer the vast majority of players, it would always be possible for a strong human player to compete with them.
Major premio53
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:09 pm
Medals: 27
Standard Achievement (4) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (3)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Login