Other Games Considered Unprogrammable
Other Games Considered Unprogrammable
...or at least very difficult (just as Go)
If you think Computer Go Programming is too difficult (even the rules are difficult to get correct: ko/superko, life and death/seki, end of the game, counting etc) to start your own program, here are some alternatives:
Lots of games exist for which no good computer opponent exists. Often no-one has ever tried to get a good opponent working. Particularly interesting are games where the human player seems to be able to beat even the strongest (currently possible) computer opponent. (See also: Intelligence)
Table of contents |
Similar to Go in the aspects:
- that the branching factor is high
- once played, a stone stays on the board and doesn't move
Especially interesting are the following two:
Hex
- (solved up to 7x7, already very strong programs exist, however less strong than humans on boards larger than 9x9)
- kde-opponent "six-0.5.0.tar.gz" is very good for example
- See computer-olympiad-pages for a list of papers on hex
Havannah
("unprogrammable"?!, $1000 for computer that beats human)
havannah is very similar to hex:
- has a very large board
- it has 3 connection-goals instead of one in hex (connect either 3 sides or 2 "corners" or make a circle)
- See especially (
http://www.mindsports.net/Arena/Havannah/ReadMe.html) very good material available there; also article on strategy
Is a strong opponent possible with hex methods? -- ab
Dots and Boxes
ilanpi: I find this game similar to Go in many ways. I believe
that it might be more difficult than Go, because there is
a parity condition where I could give it inherent instability.
It has been completely analyzed by computer up to the 5x5 dots
case (16 boxes). The 6x6 case (25 boxes)
is unsolved as of 2002. I have played these sizes
and have found the play quite similar to 7x7 Go, and therefore
similarly much simpler than 9x9 Go. Unfortunately, it seems
hard to get a good game on anything larger than a 5x5 dots
board, so I don't think much concrete is known about Dots
strategy for larger sizes (as compared to go, for example).
I have written a web site
about Dots: http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/dots.html
- excellent page!
Twixt
another "connection game"; almost no programs exist currently, so they are also weaker than human players; difficulty..?
http://www.johannes-schwagereit.de/T1.html the program Twixt T1, with source
Some discussion, for example "Anti-computer" abstract games.
Search in newsgroups: twixt in rec.games.board.*
and
twixt in rec.games.abstract (newsgroups).
Twixt-Variant: Twixt PP, no links are ever removed, own links may cross other own links; this may be easier to program, with those few and difficult special cases left out, where links had to be removed.
Similar to chess
While the upper two were for the Go players, the following one is for the chess players
Arimaa
- (a new chess-like game with larger branching factor)
- there's a prize of $10000 for a computer program that defeats a human player before the year 2020
-
http://arimaa.com/
Shogi
Anonymous opinion: I've heard this is hard for the computers too.
Bildstein's opinion: I've played quite a few ganmes of Shogi against a friend who learned the game in Japan, and he consitently beats me. But he has told me that he has some Shogi software (which he bought in Japan) that consitently beats him even on the easiest difficulty level.
SomeOne?: Actually, shogi is almost as well researched as Chess, but is more difficult for computers than Chess. It is probably slightly more difficult than chess in both tactics and strategy. Still, Shogi programs have reached a very high level, and it is estimated that in a few years Shogi programs will challenge the best players. currently they still have to play handicap games against the best. The level of the best Shogi programs is better than about 99.8% of Shogi players, and when compared with Chess, it is estimated that the level is about that of an IM in Chess. Also, shogi positions cannot be simplified with mass exchanges as in chess, because captured pieces can be used by the opponent, a fact that makes it oh so much harder for computers.
Other
ktron
ktron: Seems very difficult to me too. Although this is an "action"-game, if you remove the time pressure from the human player you can also look at it as a strategy game, played on a graph, with branching factor 3 and possibly large depth.
Given the condition for winning (being the last player with a legal play), Tron would seem to be well-suited to the kind of analysis so popular on SL.
Alex: I'm not convinced. It seems to me that, past the early stages of the game, it should be possible to prune that branching factor down to one certainly or almost-certainly best choice for most moves, with just the occasional choice of two to think about. Essentially, the endgame boils down to one giant semeai, and I think a properly-programmed computer's ability not to make blunders in that kind of tactical situation would end up beating most humans' superior intuition in the opening.
Zertz
Gerhard:
The Zertz game ( http://www.gipf.com) is also difficult for computers since you must look a large number of moves (ususally > 10) ahead. The different winning possibilities and strategy changes during the game can make this a computational difficult problem. I know of only one Zertz-playing program that plays extremely poor.
Magic the Gathering
HandOfPaper: This game is Turing complete, since instructions on cards can be arbitrary. Therefore programming an AI to understand this game would amount to teaching it to think about general principles and conduct mathematical analysis of a potentially arbitrary or almost arbitrary nature. Computerized theorem proving is still very limited and most human mathematicians do not feel their jobs are threatened by it.
WillerZ: I don't think that you meant Turing complete there. Turing complete is a technical term applied to software environments which can simulate the behaviour of a Turing machine. Almost all software environments in use today are Turing complete.
tealeaf: I originally removed this entry because I felt that there was no reason to single out Magic the Gathering for inclusion here. It has been re-added, though.
There are thousands of games that could be included if we allow Magic the Gathering; for example all of the other collectible card games, and any roleplaying game such as Dungeons and Dragons. Pictionary would probably be quite tricky, and charades as well. Football would be quite a prospect as you'd have to program the computer to recognise the position of the ball and calculate trajectories in realtime, as well as all the control infrastructure for a robot capable of running around a pitch at high speed. Diplomacy is known to be hard, and I'm sure that Nomic would be a notable case as well. The list is endless.
I think that this page was created more for abstract board games, similar to Go or chess, that are difficult to program than for any random game that a computer would have trouble with. I still maintain that this entry should be removed, but I don't want to get into an edit war over it.
WillerZ: For what it's worth, I agree with tealeaf.
Computer Olympiad
-
http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/olympiad2005/
-
http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/Olympiad2004
-
8th Computer Olympiad 2003
-
http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/Olympiad2002
-
6th Computer Olympiad
-
The 5th Computer Olympiad at MSO 4
-
http://www.google.de/search?q=computer+olympiad Computer (Game Programming) Olympiad(s)
International Computer Games Association
-
http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/icga/ International Computer Games Association
-
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~games/ University of Alberta GAMES Group
Mind Sports Zine (non computer-topics)
-
http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/news/front.html Backgammon Bridge Cards Chess Classic Go Oriental Scrabble
Lists of Programs
-
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist.php3?action=view&listid=5260 Computer Opponents for Abstract Games (with Screen Shots)
-
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/7842 Geek-List: Abstract Games online (against people and real time)
See also