Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mastering Stratego

deepmind.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 128 posts

Re: Mastering Stratego

#51

Post by thinkmcfly »

armchairhacker wrote: post #50
dr_faustus wrote: post #20

Call me a cynic but the fact that after almost 10 years of AI hype we are still working our way down the list of popular board games is a bit of a downer for me. I mean, having AIs to play Stratego, Risk, Go, Diplomacy and what have you against sure is nice. But there are literally billions of dollars spent on these projects and I really come to the point where I just don't believe anymore that the current AI approac…

This kind of AI is really useful, at least for creating video games. Game devs spend countless hours making AI which is still not as effective or realistic as real humans, a straightforward way to create good game AI from ML it would be huge. As others mentioned, AI is making headspace in enterprise and accounting, and achieving the “last mile” of human work. Better image recognition for handwritten forms and mail, b…

Now game companies won't even own their ai! They will get to rent it by the minute from Google. The death of consumers having control over the software they pay for fucking suuuucks

Re: Mastering Stratego

#52

Post by topaz0 »

sdwr wrote: post #24
ep103 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are these games against stratego masters? I'm watching the first one, but it doesn't say who they're playing against

Dont think the player pool is very deep, doubt there are many masters around..

What makes you think that? The article says that one of the coauthors used to be a world champion, which suggests to me that there is some kind of competitive organized league.

Re: Mastering Stratego

#53

Post by alan-crowe »

throwup wrote: post #40
clolege wrote: post #13

It's interesting to watch the videos they link of deepmind playing against the top-level Stratego masters [0]. I usually find Stratego to be a bit of a dull game (less elegant and more drawn out than Go and chess), but I'm a sucker for watching top-level AIs play. Its skills for bluffing are both fascinating and a bit scary. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaUdWoSMjSY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-9ZXmyNKgs h…

Fascinating games. But I played a lot of Stratego as a kid, and I remember 1 was the strongest piece and 9 was the weakest. In these videos it seems 10 is strongest and 2 is weakest and that's making it confusing to watch. Did the pieces change sometime in the past 40 years or am I imagining things?

I've just watched a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYQbGHgaWbM that talks about "original" Stratego, a game created in 1947 by Jacques Johan Mogendorff. It might be nostalgic for you.

Searching to find out whether "original" is the current version, I've noticed that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratego#Versions answers your question

"European versions of the game give the Marshal the highest number (10), while the initial American versions give the Marshal the lowest number (1) to show the highest value (i.e. it is the #1 or most powerful tile). More recent American versions of the game, which adopted the European system, caused considerable complaint among American players who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s."

Re: Mastering Stratego

#55

Post by runarberg »

pbronez wrote: post #31
runarberg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a time when I thought that maybe there was something more to AI then a fancy statistical model when you need to fit non-linear data. But I’m solidly on the belief now that AI is precisely a very powerful statistical tool. I honestly think there was never any real strategy of getting AI to anything more then specialized learning for deeper inference using a lot of computational power. Don’t get me wrong, usi…

I’m not an AGI fanboy. I agree that the current line of inquiry (ie deep learning) won’t get us there. I think neurosymbolic reasoning is needed. That work is still nascent, and worse, we don’t have great ways to connect our current paradigm to it.

Now thinking about it, is there any need for an AGI model? Is this a classic case of a (magic) solution looking for a problem?

There are for sure use cases for inference models in generalized (or rather ill-understood; or even highly dynamic) non-linear systems, and deep learning models kind of ace at that—given enough training data and a lot of computational power. However I’m not really sure what we will use AGI for.

Re: Mastering Stratego

#56

Post by pmontra »

clolege wrote: post #30
sdwr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watched some of the first game. I'd bet stratego favors defence, advantage to the AI that has no/minimal concept of the value of time.

Yeah this is one of the reasons why I find it more dull than chess. There is an incentive to just not move your pieces, so that the other player thinks they're bombs. As a result, players only activate 2-3 pieces at a time. In chess, on the other hand, you are constantly moving your pawns to the other side to promotion, or otherwise trying to activate/coordinate all of your pieces for an attack. It makes me think tha…

Chess has the 50 moves rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty-move_rule about

A "player can claim a draw if no capture has been made and no pawn has been moved in the last fifty moves"

Re: Mastering Stratego

#57

Post by hgsgm »

Minor49er wrote: post #35
dr_faustus wrote: post #20

Call me a cynic but the fact that after almost 10 years of AI hype we are still working our way down the list of popular board games is a bit of a downer for me. I mean, having AIs to play Stratego, Risk, Go, Diplomacy and what have you against sure is nice. But there are literally billions of dollars spent on these projects and I really come to the point where I just don't believe anymore that the current AI approac…

The AI hype has been around for much longer than 10 years. Ray Kurzweil's book "The Singularity is Near" was first published in 2005. Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov in 1997

Kurzweil's first book, The Age of Intelligent Machines, was published in 1990.

Re: Mastering Stratego

#58

Post by 10xDev »

astrange wrote: post #48
10xDev wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fancy wikipedia chatbot. Nothing to do with generalisation.

It generalizes as well as GPT-3 does: --- If you took the word "Wikipedia", and threw all the letters up in the air, what are some possible things they'd spell once they fell on the ground again? If you took the word "Wikipedia" and threw all the letters up in the air, some possible things they could spell once they fell on the ground again might include "kawipieda," "keiapwidi," "kipedwaia," "pwakieida," or "eipawik…

We don't know how well it is generalising to your input without knowing the training data. Failure cases however tell us a lot, such as the following:

Input: "If five cats can catch five mice in five minutes, how long will it take one cat to catch one mouse?"

Output: "If five cats can catch five mice in five minutes, then it will take one cat one minute to catch one mouse. This is because the number of cats and mice are inversely proportional, so as the number of cats decreases, the time it takes for a cat to catch a mouse will increase. Similarly, as the number of mice decreases, the time it takes for a cat to catch a mouse will decrease. Therefore, if five cats can catch five mice in five minutes, then it will take one cat one minute to catch one mouse."

As you can see, it fails at simple logic because it fails to understand that the number of mice aren't fixed in the question. Whereas a human would immediately pick that up because they reason beyond x=5 and y=5.

Re: Mastering Stratego

#59

Post by hgsgm »

topaz0 wrote: post #52
sdwr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dont think the player pool is very deep, doubt there are many masters around..

What makes you think that? The article says that one of the coauthors used to be a world champion, which suggests to me that there is some kind of competitive organized league.

How many people study Stratego as much as an International Master studies chess?

Re: Mastering Stratego

#60

Post by clolege »

VHRanger wrote: post #43
clolege wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that's crazy. It seems like it would be easier for AI to do, since it doesn't have any tells (it's easier to have a poker face when you don't have a face at all). I remember playing poker as a kid, and experimenting with pretending like my cards were good/bad with body language. I don't think that any professional players use that approach (they just have sunglasses and a straight face), but I wonder if AI could…

All Poker AIs developped as yet approaches Nash Equilibrium -- it's just a "perfect" strategy that wins by default because it makes no mistakes. Since you make mistakes against the AI strategy, and the sum of the game of poker is 0, you lose by default. No poker bots yet I know of have developed "exploitative" strategies, where they deviate from the Nash Equilibrium strategy to exploit opponent mistakes. Back when I…

Nash equilibriums exist when bluffing is involved?

It seems like it would introduce a level of predictability that would make it easier to know when the opponent is bluffing.

Post reply on HN