CSE-4119: Artificial Intelligence

Adversarial Search and Game Trees

Instructor: Shafkat Kibria

Leading University, Sylhet

[slides adapted from Nikita Kitaev, Dan Klein, Pieter Abbeel, Anca Dragan, et al of University of California (ai.berkeley.edu).]
 Game Playing State-of-the-Art
 Checkers: 1950: First computer player. 1994: First
computer champion: Chinook ended 40-year-reign
of human champion Marion Tinsley using complete
8-piece endgame. 2007: Checkers solved!
 Chess: 1997: Deep Blue defeats human champion
Gary Kasparov in a six-game match. Deep Blue
examined 200M positions per second, used very
sophisticated evaluation and undisclosed methods
for extending some lines of search up to 40 ply.
Current programs are even better, if less historic.
 Go: Human champions are now starting to be
challenged by machines. In go, b > 300! Classic
programs use pattern knowledge bases, but big
recent advances use Monte Carlo (randomized)
expansion methods.
 Game Playing State-of-the-Art
 Checkers: 1950: First computer player. 1994: First
computer champion: Chinook ended 40-year-reign
of human champion Marion Tinsley using complete
8-piece endgame. 2007: Checkers solved!
 Chess: 1997: Deep Blue defeats human champion
Gary Kasparov in a six-game match. Deep Blue
examined 200M positions per second, used very
sophisticated evaluation and undisclosed methods
for extending some lines of search up to 40 ply.
Current programs are even better, if less historic.
 Go: 2016: Alpha GO defeats human champion.
Uses Monte Carlo Tree Search, learned evaluation
function.
 Pacman
Behavior from Computation
Video of Demo Mystery Pacman
Adversarial Games
 Types of Games
 Many different kinds of games!

 Axes:
 Deterministic or stochastic?
 One, two, or more players?
 Zero sum*?
 Perfect information (can you see the state)?

 Want algorithms for calculating a strategy (policy) which recommends a

move from each state
* Zero-sum is a situation in game theory in which one person’s gain is equivalent to another’s loss, so the net
change in wealth or benefit is zero. A zero-sum game may have as few as two players or as many as millions of
participants.
 Deterministic Games
 Many possible formalizations, one is:
 States: S (start at s0)
 Players: P={1...N} (usually take turns)
 Actions: A (may depend on player / state)
 Transition Function: SxA  S
 Terminal Test: S  {t,f}
 Terminal Utilities: SxP  R

 Solution for a player is a policy: S  A

 Zero-Sum Games

 Zero-Sum Games  General Games

 Agents have opposite utilities (values on  Agents have independent utilities (values on
outcomes) outcomes)
 Lets us think of a single value that one  Cooperation, indifference, competition, and
maximizes and the other minimizes more are all possible
 Adversarial, pure competition  More later on non-zero-sum games
Adversarial Search
 Single-Agent Trees

2 0 … 2 6 … 4 6
 Value of a State
Value of a state: Non-Terminal States:
The best achievable
outcome (utility)
from that state

2 0 … 2 6 … 4 6
Terminal States:
 Adversarial Game Trees

-20 -8 … -18 -5 … -10 +4 -20 +8

 Minimax Values
States Under Agent’s Control: States Under Opponent’s Control:

-8 -5 -10 +8

Terminal States:
Tic-Tac-Toe Game Tree
 Adversarial Search (Minimax)
 Deterministic, zero-sum games: Minimax values:
computed recursively
 Tic-tac-toe, chess, checkers
 One player maximizes result 5 max
 The other minimizes result

2 5 min
 Minimax search:
 A state-space search tree
 Players alternate turns
 Compute each node’s minimax value: 8 2 5 6
the best achievable utility against a
rational (optimal) adversary Terminal values:
part of the game
 Minimax Implementation

def max-value(state): def min-value(state):

initialize v = -∞ initialize v = +∞
for each successor of state: for each successor of state:
v = max(v, min-value(successor)) v = min(v, max-value(successor))
return v return v
 Minimax Implementation (Dispatch)
def value(state):
if the state is a terminal state: return the state’s utility
if the next agent is MAX: return max-value(state)
if the next agent is MIN: return min-value(state)

def max-value(state): def min-value(state):

initialize v = -∞ initialize v = +∞
for each successor of state: for each successor of state:
v = max(v, value(successor)) v = min(v, value(successor))
return v return v
 Minimax Example

3 12 8 2 4 6 14 5 2
 Minimax Properties

max

min

10 10 9 100

Optimal against a perfect player. Otherwise?

Video of Demo Min vs. Exp (Min)
Video of Demo Min vs. Exp (Exp)
 Minimax Efficiency
 How efficient is minimax?
 Just like (exhaustive) DFS
 Time: O(bm)
 Space: O(bm)

 Example: For chess, b  35, m  100

 Exact solution is completely infeasible
 But, do we need to explore the whole
tree?
Resource Limits
Game Tree Pruning
 Minimax Example

3 12 8 2 4 6 14 5 2
 Minimax Pruning

3 12 8 2 14 5 2
 Alpha-Beta Pruning
 General configuration (MIN version)
 We’re computing the MIN-VALUE at some node n MAX
 We’re looping over n’s children
 n’s estimate of the childrens’ min is dropping
MIN a
 Who cares about n’s value? MAX
 Let a be the best value that MAX can get at any choice
point along the current path from the root
 If n becomes worse than a, MAX will avoid it, so we can MAX
stop considering n’s other children (it’s already bad
enough that it won’t be played) MIN n

 MAX version is symmetric

 Alpha-Beta Implementation

α: MAX’s best option on path to root

β: MIN’s best option on path to root

def max-value(state, α, β): def min-value(state, α, β):

initialize v = -∞ initialize v = +∞
for each successor of state: for each successor of state:
v = max(v, value(successor, α, β)) v = min(v, value(successor, α, β))
if v ≥ β return v if v ≤ α return v
α = max(α, v) β = min(β, v)
return v return v
 Alpha-Beta Pruning Properties
 This pruning has no effect on minimax value computed for the root!

 Values of intermediate nodes might be wrong

 Important: children of the root may have the wrong value max
 So the most naïve version won’t let you do action selection

 Good child ordering improves effectiveness of pruning min

 With “perfect ordering”:

 Time complexity drops to O(bm/2)
10 10 0
 Doubles solvable depth!
 Full search of, e.g. chess, is still hopeless…

 This is a simple example of metareasoning (computing about what to compute)

Alpha-Beta Quiz
Alpha-Beta Quiz 2
Resource Limits
 Resource Limits
 Problem: In realistic games, cannot search to leaves! max
4
 Solution: Depth-limited search -2 4 min
 Instead, search only to a limited depth in the tree
 Replace terminal utilities with an evaluation function for -1 -2 4 9
non-terminal positions
 Example:
 Suppose we have 100 seconds, can explore 10K nodes / sec
 So can check 1M nodes per move
 - reaches about depth 8 – decent chess program

 Guarantee of optimal play is gone

 More plies makes a BIG difference
 Use iterative deepening for an anytime algorithm ? ? ? ?
Video of Demo Thrashing (d=2)
 Why Pacman Starves

 A danger of replanning agents!

 He knows his score will go up by eating the dot now (west, east)
 He knows his score will go up just as much by eating the dot later (east, west)
 There are no point-scoring opportunities after eating the dot (within the horizon, two here)
 Therefore, waiting seems just as good as eating: he may go east, then back west in the next
round of replanning!
Video of Demo Thrashing -- Fixed (d=2)
Evaluation Functions
 Evaluation Functions
 Evaluation functions score non-terminals in depth-limited search

 Ideal function: returns the actual minimax value of the position

 In practice: typically weighted linear sum of features:

 e.g. f1(s) = (num white queens – num black queens), etc.

Evaluation for Pacman
Video of Demo Smart Ghosts (Coordination)
Video of Demo Smart Ghosts (Coordination) – Zoomed In
 Depth Matters
 Evaluation functions are always
imperfect
 The deeper in the tree the
evaluation function is buried, the
less the quality of the evaluation
function matters
 An important example of the
tradeoff between complexity of
features and complexity of
computation
Video of Demo Limited Depth (2)
Video of Demo Limited Depth (10)
Synergies between Evaluation Function and Alpha-Beta?
 Alpha-Beta: amount of pruning depends on expansion ordering
 Evaluation function can provide guidance to expand most promising nodes first
(which later makes it more likely there is already a good alternative on the path to
the root)
 (somewhat similar to role of A* heuristic)

 Alpha-Beta: (similar for roles of min-max swapped)

 Value at a min-node will only keep going down
 Once value of min-node lower than better option for max along path to root, can
prune
 Hence: IF evaluation function provides upper-bound on value at min-node, and
upper-bound already lower than better option for max along path to root
THEN can prune