Moderator: Community Team
TeeGee wrote:It's not only possible, it has been done a few times, there are a few "risk" programs out there with various levels of artificial intelligence.
Army of GOD wrote:Little do you know that I am an actual computer.
frankiebee wrote:The problem with Risk is that it is most of the times more than 2 players. In 6 players games responding on the opponents strategy is as important as your own strategy. This would make it hard for a computer to get a significant advantage...
Chariot of Fire wrote:Disagree with Mets statement re algorithms 'knowing strategy' to some extent (but then I know nothing of technology but everything to do with strategy games) as every game-playing program has a catalogue of strategies from which it adopts at the opening. It will play one strategy, recognise the opponent's strategy and immediately compute whether it will win or lose if it sticks to its original gambit and respond accordingly.
Tech today would make for a far more efficient (and formidable) computer than Deep Blue, whose real strength lay in its ability to compute 200 million moves per second (an extraordinary advantage in tourney-playing conditions under the clock) rather than its software.
Army of GOD wrote:Little do you know that I am an actual computer.
Metsfanmax wrote:frankiebee wrote:The problem with Risk is that it is most of the times more than 2 players. In 6 players games responding on the opponents strategy is as important as your own strategy. This would make it hard for a computer to get a significant advantage...
Game-playing algorithms don't really know about strategy to begin with. If you can brute force your way through all the possible scenarios, it doesn't matter what your opponent's strategy is; you're still going to be making the best objective move. The problem is that with six players, it becomes increasingly more computationally demanding to sort out all the possible plays.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users