Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

Forum rules
This forum is limited to topics relating to the game Diplomacy only. Other posts or topics will be relocated to the correct forum category or deleted. Please be respectful and follow our normal site rules at http://www.webdiplomacy.net/rules.php.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
Smilies
:points: :-D :eyeroll: :neutral: :nmr: :razz: :raging: :-) ;) :( :sick: :o :? 8-) :x :shock: :lol: :cry: :evil: :?: :smirk: :!:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is OFF
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Expand view Topic review: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by Pallavi1990 » Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:47 am

Thank you for your help. I'm looking for something like that

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by Squigs44 » Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:08 pm

RoganJosh wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:51 pm
Squigs44 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:43 pm
In Nim, depending on who goes first and the starting heaps, you could build an AI that would win every single time.
Even if AI plays against AI? Both would win?
Whichever AI went first would win every time (except for unique setups where whoever went second would win every time). Probability has no part in choosing moves in a game of Nim.

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by RoganJosh » Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:58 pm

Restitution wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:40 pm
This is incorrect.
Actually, I admitted I made a mistake. In my world, "Nash equilibrium" is "pure state Nash equilibrium," and "mixed state Nash equilibrium" is called "optimal strategy."

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by Restitution » Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:44 pm

RoganJosh wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:51 pm
What can I say. In 50/50 guess for the win there is no Nash equilibrium. I think we don't use the same definition of "solve."

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by Restitution » Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:40 pm

RoganJosh wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:06 pm
Wait, are we just discussing the difference between pure strategy Nash equilibria and mixed strategy Nash equilibria!?

Oh, no! We're both pathetic!
No, no, that's just you. I never claimed that pure strategy nash equilibriums didn't exist, you insisted that the example you gave of a coin flip wasn't a nash equilibrium at all and are backfilling your mistake as if you knew what a mixed strategy was all along.

Literally posted about how I'm cute before reading two sentences after the sentence you quoted. Pure sophistry.

Anyway, I'm done. You would look a lot better if you just admitted you made a mistake.

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by RoganJosh » Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:06 pm

Wait, are we just discussing the difference between pure strategy Nash equilibria and mixed strategy Nash equilibria!?

Oh, no! We're both pathetic!

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by RoganJosh » Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:04 pm

Restitution wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:40 pm
The case of a 50/50 nash equilibrium is *literally* an archetypal example of a nash equilibrium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_pennies
Quoting the Matching Pennies wikipedia article:

"This game has no pure strategy Nash equilibrium since there is no pure strategy (heads or tails) that is a best response to a best response"

You are cute!

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by Restitution » Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:46 pm

"the unique Nash equilibrium of this game is in mixed strategies: each player chooses heads or tails with equal probability.[2] In this way, each player makes the other indifferent between choosing heads or tails, so neither player has an incentive to try another strategy. "

How is it possible for someone to be so confident and so wrong?

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by Restitution » Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:40 pm

RoganJosh wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:39 pm
Sorry, but that is not what a Nash equilibrium is. A Nash equilibrium is a situation where both players made a choice, and neither player would want to change their mind even if they were told what the other player chose.
This is incorrect. You can literally google the correct definition. Or look at wikiepdia, yeah. You've pretty clearly only learned about nash equilibriums through the prisoner's dilemma or something.

The case of a 50/50 nash equilibrium is *literally* an archetypal example of a nash equilibrium: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_pennies

Which is in the *second paragraph* of the nash equilibrium wikipedia page.

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by Puddle » Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:39 pm

I do so enjoy a game of, "You don't know what you're talking about! No, YOU don't know what you're talking about!" In the interest of advancing this discussion, here is the wikipedia page for Nash Equilibrium:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by RoganJosh » Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:39 pm

Restitution wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:29 pm
The nash equilibrium is to do option A 50% of the time and option B 50% of the time, anything else would be exploitable. That is exactly what a nash equilibrium means...
Sorry, but that is not what a Nash equilibrium is. A Nash equilibrium is a situation where both players made a choice, and neither player would want to change their mind even if they were told what the other player chose.

Soo - at least it turns out we had the same definition of what "solve" means! :)

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by Restitution » Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:29 pm

RoganJosh wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:51 pm


What can I say. In 50/50 guess for the win there is no Nash equilibrium. I think we don't use the same definition of "solve."
The nash equilibrium is to do option A 50% of the time and option B 50% of the time, anything else would be exploitable. That is exactly what a nash equilibrium means... I do not mean to be rude but I think you might be thinking of a different concept, or have not been taught the concept correctly.

Like, the nash equilibrium on rock paper scissors is to guess each option 33% of the time, which means it's a solved game. There is a GTO solution.

If 1v1 Diplomacy is solvable, there is an optimal (meaning non-exploitable) strategy. Which necessarily means that there exists some Nash equilibrium for every decision.
RoganJosh wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:51 pm
Even if AI plays against AI? Both would win?
Pure sophistry

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by RoganJosh » Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:51 pm

Restitution wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:41 pm
If diplomacy is solvable then there necessarily exists a Nash equilibrium for any decision
What can I say. In 50/50 guess for the win there is no Nash equilibrium. I think we don't use the same definition of "solve."
Squigs44 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:43 pm
In Nim, depending on who goes first and the starting heaps, you could build an AI that would win every single time.
Even if AI plays against AI? Both would win?

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by Squigs44 » Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:43 pm

RoganJosh wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:23 am
Also, no AI in any game is guaranteed win, just let AI play against AI...
Depends on the game. In a game of Nim, depending on who goes first and the starting heaps, you could build an AI that would win every single time.

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by Restitution » Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:41 pm

RoganJosh wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:23 am
Restitution wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:17 am
You can solve a probabilistic game. Nash equilibriums.
Nash equilibrium doesn't exist at every stage in this game.
?

If diplomacy is solvable then there necessarily exists a Nash equilibrium for any decision

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by RoganJosh » Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:23 am

Restitution wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:17 am
You can solve a probabilistic game. Nash equilibriums.
Nash equilibrium doesn't exist at every stage in this game.
Squigs44 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:38 am
You might be able to solve for the best move-set at any scenario with your given information using probability. But you can't solve for a "complete" solution in the sense that you can't guarantee that an AI will win every game it plays.
Solving means to describe the optimal strategy. In this game, there is usually no "best move-set." Solving, in this case, means to describe the distribution of frequencies by which you should play each possible move-set. Then you randomize...

Also, no AI in any game is guaranteed win, just let AI play against AI...

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by Restitution » Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:58 am

Squigs44 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:38 am
Restitution wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:17 am
Squigs44 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:54 am


I'm not sure there is a complete solution. Too much guesswork involved.

The hard thing about diplomacy is its turn structure. In chess, or go, one decision is made at a time. White makes 1 move, then black makes one move, etc. In diplomacy, two players are simultaneously making up to 17 decisions that all interact with one another. So although there are fewer turns in diplomacy, each turn requires multiple complex interlocking decisions. Also, the fact that you are taking your turn at the same time as your opponent means you are working with incomplete information at every step.
You can solve a probabilistic game. Nash equilibriums.
You might be able to solve for the best move-set at any scenario with your given information using probability. But you can't solve for a "complete" solution in the sense that you can't guarantee that an AI will win every game it plays.
No, but that's not what solving a game means. Solving the game means that there exists an algorithm which can play perfectly.

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by Squigs44 » Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:38 am

Restitution wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:17 am
Squigs44 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:54 am
RoganJosh wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:46 pm
I think 1v1 diplomacy is to simple - AI would probably solve it completely. That would be pretty boring.
I'm not sure there is a complete solution. Too much guesswork involved.

The hard thing about diplomacy is its turn structure. In chess, or go, one decision is made at a time. White makes 1 move, then black makes one move, etc. In diplomacy, two players are simultaneously making up to 17 decisions that all interact with one another. So although there are fewer turns in diplomacy, each turn requires multiple complex interlocking decisions. Also, the fact that you are taking your turn at the same time as your opponent means you are working with incomplete information at every step.
You can solve a probabilistic game. Nash equilibriums.
You might be able to solve for the best move-set at any scenario with your given information using probability. But you can't solve for a "complete" solution in the sense that you can't guarantee that an AI will win every game it plays.

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by Restitution » Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:17 am

Squigs44 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:54 am
RoganJosh wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:46 pm
I think 1v1 diplomacy is to simple - AI would probably solve it completely. That would be pretty boring.
I'm not sure there is a complete solution. Too much guesswork involved.

The hard thing about diplomacy is its turn structure. In chess, or go, one decision is made at a time. White makes 1 move, then black makes one move, etc. In diplomacy, two players are simultaneously making up to 17 decisions that all interact with one another. So although there are fewer turns in diplomacy, each turn requires multiple complex interlocking decisions. Also, the fact that you are taking your turn at the same time as your opponent means you are working with incomplete information at every step.
You can solve a probabilistic game. Nash equilibriums.

Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy

by Squigs44 » Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:54 am

RoganJosh wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:46 pm
I think 1v1 diplomacy is to simple - AI would probably solve it completely. That would be pretty boring.
I'm not sure there is a complete solution. Too much guesswork involved.

The hard thing about diplomacy is its turn structure. In chess, or go, one decision is made at a time. White makes 1 move, then black makes one move, etc. In diplomacy, two players are simultaneously making up to 17 decisions that all interact with one another. So although there are fewer turns in diplomacy, each turn requires multiple complex interlocking decisions. Also, the fact that you are taking your turn at the same time as your opponent means you are working with incomplete information at every step.

Top