DOCSLIB.ORG

Connect6 Introduction and Rules

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Connect6 Introduction and Rules Proposal for a New Computer Olympiad Game –– Connect6 Proposed by I-Chen Wu in September 2005 Introduction and Rules Connec6, which can be viewed as a kind of 6-in-a-row game, was introduced by I-Chen Wu and Der-Yann Huang (Wu and Huang, 2005). The rules of Connect6, similar to those in Go-Moku, are very simple as follows. • Players and stones: There are two players. The first player, called Black here, holds a set of black stones, like Go or Go-Moku games. The second player, called White here, holds a set of white stones. • Game boards: In theory, the size of game board can be infinite. However, practically, it is hard to support such a game board. Therefore, our proposal is as follows. o For casual players, simply use 19×19 Go boards. o For professional players, use 59×59 boards. The reason for this size for professional players is in the following two senses. Players can tile up 9 Go boards to play, if games are played without the help of computers. In addition, judging from some current games, such as Go and Chess, we roughly estimate at most hundreds of moves per game in the extreme cases. Hundreds of moves inside a 59×59 board for Connect6 seem reasonable. o In order to make programmers easier to handle, 19×19 Go boards are initially recommended for Computer Olympiad game contests. 59×59 boards may be used in the future. • Game moves: Black plays first and places only one black stone on one unoccupied intersection, also called square in the rest of this document. Subsequently, Black and White alternately place two of their own stones on two unoccupied squares. • Game winning: The one who first gets six consecutive stones (horizontally, vertically or diagonally) of her/his own wins. Unlike Renju, a variant of Go-Moku for professionals, no extra rules are needed to be imposed on Connect6, since the rules of Connect6 are fair enough. Fairness We first review the fairness problem of Go-Moku and then discuss the fairness of Connect6. Fairness has been a major issue for Go-Moku, even though it has been a popular game. • In the free style of rules (without any restriction to Black), it has been well known that the game favors Black. Theoretically, it was proved (Allis, 1994; Allis, Herik, and Huntjens, 1996) that Black wins in the free style. • To reduce the unfairness problem, the Japanese professional Renju association added some rules (Japanese professional Renju association, 1903) to restrict the play of Black for professional players. For example, Black is prohibited to play double three and double four. In fact, Renju still favors Black, from the experiences of professionals. It was also proved (Wágner, Virág, 2001) that Black still wins. • The Renju International Federation (RIF) changed the rules (RIF, 1998) to make it fairer by imposing some opening rules for the first five moves. • In 2003, RIF requested a proposal (RIF, 2003) for better opening rules again and listed the requirements for new rules. This indicates that it is still hard to define a fair rule for the game. In fact, adding more rules makes it harder to learn the game. The fairness problem for Go-Moku or Renju also has a side effect. • Reduce the board size. It was argued (Sakata and Ikawa, 1981) that a larger board increases black’s advantage which resulted in the standard Renju board size of 15x15. However, a smaller board reduces the complexity of the game. Consequently, it becomes easier to solve the game. Herik, Uiterwijk, and Rijswijck gave a definition of fairness (Herik, Uiterwijk, and Rijswijck, 2002) as follows: A game is considered a fair game if it is a draw and both players have a roughly equal probability on making a mistake. From this, Connect6 is argued to be fair in the following two senses: • One player always has one more stone than the other after making each move. • The initial breakaway (means to play far away from the initial Black stone) does not apparently favor White. It was proved in (Wu and Huang, 2005) that if White makes an initial breakaway, Black wins. Note that if White did not have penalty by making an initial breakaway, the game would be just like a game that White places two stones initially. In practice, based on the current empirical experiences on Connect6 so far, it has not yet been identified that one player takes clear advantage over the other. Since the game was presented (Wu and Huang, 2005), tens of thousands of players, including many Renju dan players, have played Connect6 over an online game system (ThinkNewIdea Limited 2005). No players have yet been able to show winning sequences for Connect6. Complexity The state-space complexity of Connect6 is very high, since the board size can be very large. For casual players, the size is already 19×19, the same as the Go board. So, the state-space complexity is also 10172, the same as that in Go (Herik, Uiterwijk, and Rijswijck, 2002). For professional players, the size is 59×59, which makes the state-space complexity roughly as high as 101600. Now, investigate the game-tree complexity. Assume that the averaged game length is still 30, the same as the estimation for Go-Moku (Allis 1994). Then, the number of squares chosen to place one stone is about 300, and the number of choices of one move is about (300*300/2). Thus, the game-tree complexity is about (300*300/2)30 ~ 10140, much higher than 1070 for Go-Moku (Herik, Uiterwijk, and Rijswijck, 2002). Also, for the board used by professionals, this complexity is much higher. Example Games The following are played by two computers. White wins in the following case. Black wins in the following case. Following are some Tsumegos, won by White (Lee 2005). Current Status • The first Connect6 program was written (Wu and Huang 2004) in 2004. • The first scientific paper on Connect6 (Wu and Huang 2005) was published in ACG’11 in 2005. • The homepage for Connect6 is in www.connect6.org or connect6.csie.nctu.edu.tw. • The first online game server for Connect6 is www.cycgame.com/connect6 in 2005. Tens of thousands of players have played in this site. • The first Connect6 discussion group including Joseki/Tsumego was formed by Lee (Lee 2005). • The first Connect6 game contest is being proposed to the Computer Olympiad by this document. Expected Participants for Connect6 in the Computer Olympiad • I-C. Wu and D.-Y. Huang. • S.C. Hsu. • S. Lin. • S.J. Yen. References Books and Papers • Allis, L.V. (1994). Searching for Solutions in Games and Artificial Intelligence. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands. ISBN 9-0900-7488-0. • Allis, L.V., Herik, H.J van den, and Huntjens, M.P.H. (1993). Go-Moku and Threat-Space Search. Report CS 93-02, Department of Computer Science, Faculty of General Sciences, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands. ISSN 0922-8721. • Allis, L.V., Herik, H.J. van den, and Huntjens, M.P.H. (1996). Go-Moku Solved by New Search Techniques. Computational Intelligence: An International Journal. Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 7-24. Special Issue on Games. Blackwell Publishers. ISSN 0824-7935. • Allis, L.V., Meulen, M. van der, and Herik, H.J. van den (1994). Proof-Number Search. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 91-124. ISSN 0004-3702. • Herik, H.J. van den, Uiterwijk, J.W.H.M. and Van Rijswijck, J. (2002). Games solved: now and in the future. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 134, pp. 277-311. • Japanese Professional Renju Association, (1903). History of Renju Rules, http://www.renjusha.net/database/oldrule.htm. • Lee, T.W. (2005) Joseki and Tsumegos for Connect6 (in Chinese). http://groups.msn.com/connect6/. • Nosovsky, A. (2002). Go-moku Still Alive. ICGA Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 47-48. • Pluhar, A. (1994). Generalizations of the game k-in-a-row, Rutcor Res. Rep. 15-94. • Pluhar, A. (2002). The accelerated k-in-a-row game, Theoretical Computer Science. 271 (1-2) 865-875. • Renju International Federation (1998). The International Rules of Renju, http://www.renju.nu/rifrules.htm. • Renju International Federation (2003). Agenda for the RIF General Assembly, http://www.renju.nu/wc2003/MOM_RIF_030805.htm. • Sakata, G. and Ikawa, W. (1981). Five-in-a-Row, Renju. The Ishi Press, Inc. Tokyo, Japan. • ThinkNewIdea Limited (2005). CYC game web site (in Chinese). http://www.cycgame.com. • Wágner and Virág (2001). Solving Renju. ICGA Journal, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 30-34. • Wu, I-C., and Huang, D.-Y. (2005) A New Family of k-in-a-row Games. The 11th Advances in Computer Games (ACG11) Conference, Taipei, Taiwan. Web Sources • www.connect6.org or connect6.csie.nctu.edu.tw: A Connect6 web site. • www.cycgame.com/connect6: The first web site for Connect6 online games. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents 129
    Table of Contents 129 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................................129 Science and Checkers (H.J. van den Herik) .............................................................................................................129 Searching Solitaire in Real Time (R. Bjarnason, P. Tadepalli, and A. Fern)........................................................ 131 An Efficient Approach to Solve Mastermind Optimally (L-T. Huang, S-T. Chen, S-Ch. Huang, and S.-S. Lin) ...................................................................................................................................... 143 Note: ................................................................................................................................................................. 150 Gentlemen, Stop your Engines! (G. McC. Haworth).......................................................................... 150 Information for Contributors............................................................................................................................. 157 News, Information, Tournaments, and Reports: ......................................................................................................158 The 12th Computer Olympiad (Continued) (H.J. van den Herik, M.H.M. Winands, and J. Hellemons).158 DAM 2.2 Wins Draughts Tournament (T. Tillemans) ........................................................................158
    [Show full text]
  • CONNECT6 I-Chen Wu1, Dei-Yen Huang1, and Hsiu-Chen Chang1
    234 ICGA Journal December 2005 NOTES CONNECT6 1 1 1 I-Chen Wu , Dei-Yen Huang , and Hsiu-Chen Chang Hsinchu, Taiwan ABSTRACT This note introduces the game Connect6, a member of the family of the k-in-a-row games, and investigates some related issues. We analyze the fairness of Connect6 and show that Connect6 is potentially fair. Then we describe other characteristics of Connect6, e.g., the high game-tree and state-space complexities. Thereafter we present some threat-based winning strategies for Connect6 players or programs. Finally, the note describes the current developments of Connect6 and lists five new challenges. 1. INTRODUCTION Traditionally, the game k-in-a-row is defined as follows. Two players, henceforth represented as B and W, alternately place one stone, black and white respectively, on one empty square2 of an m × n board; B is assumed to play first. The player who first obtains k consecutive stones (horizontally, vertically or diagonally) of his own colour wins the game. Recently, Wu and Huang (2005) presented a new family of k-in-a-row games, Connect(m,n,k,p,q), which are analogous to the traditional k-in-a-row games, except that B places q stones initially and then both W and B alternately place p stones subsequently. The additional parameter q is a key that significantly influences the fairness. The games in the family are also referred to as Connect games. For simplicity, Connect(k,p,q) denotes the games Connect(∞,∞,k,p,q), played on infinite boards. A well-known and popular Connect game is five-in-a-row, also called Go-Moku.
    [Show full text]
  • Mohex 2.0: a Pattern-Based MCTS Hex Player
    MoHex 2.0: a pattern-based MCTS Hex player Shih-Chieh Huang1,2, Broderick Arneson2, Ryan B. Hayward2, Martin M¨uller2, and Jakub Pawlewicz3 1 DeepMind Technologies 2 Computing Science, University of Alberta 3 Institute of Informatics, University of Warsaw Abstract. In recent years the Monte Carlo tree search revolution has spread from computer Go to many areas, including computer Hex. MCTS Hex players now outperform traditional knowledge-based alpha-beta search players, and the reigning Computer Olympiad Hex gold medallist is the MCTS player MoHex. In this paper we show how to strengthen Mo- Hex, and observe that — as in computer Go — using learned patterns in priors and replacing a hand-crafted simulation policy with a softmax pol- icy that uses learned patterns can significantly increase playing strength. The result is MoHex 2.0, about 250 Elo stronger than MoHex on the 11×11 board, and 300 Elo stronger on 13×13. 1 Introduction In the 1940s Piet Hein [22] and independently John Nash [26–28] invented Hex, the classic two-player alternate-turn connection game. The game is easy to im- plement — in the 1950s Claude Shannon and E.F. Moore built an analogue Hex player based on electrical circuits [29] — but difficult to master, and has often been used as a testbed for artificial intelligence research. Around 2006 Monte Carlo tree search appeared in Go Go [11] and soon spread to other domains. The four newest Olympiad Hex competitors — MoHex from 2008 [4], Yopt from 2009 [3], MIMHex from 2010 [5], Panoramex from 2011 [20] — all use MCTS.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules for the 17Th World Computer-Chess
    Rules for the 17 th World Computer-Chess Championship 1 RULES FOR THE 17 th WORLD COMPUTER-CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP Pamplona, Spain May 11-18, 2009 The Board of ICGA The 17 th World Computer-Chess Championship will take place from May 11-18, 2009 in Pamplona, Spain. Here we recall that the Maastricht Triennial Meeting in 2002, i.e., the ICGA meeting, decided that the WCCC should be held annually without distinguishing any type of machines. The observation was clear: all kinds of differences between microcomputers, personal computers, “normal” computers, and supercomputers were in some sense obsolete and the classification thus was considered artificial. So was the division into the classes of single processors and multiprocessors. For 2009 we are introducing a new rule on a somewhat experimental basis. For this year’s WCCC a limit is being placed on the number of cores that a computer system may use for the tournament. The longer-term future of this rule is currently under discussion in various computer chess forums and will be debated by the contestants during this year’s World Championship, which might lead to changes for future years. Another division considered obsolete since 2002 is that between amateur and professional. Is not the real amateur a professional? Or the other way round? For organizational matters we have kept this difference, since for amateurs the cost of travelling and housing is already expensive. Being treated as a professional may be agreeable, but if you have to pay for it then it might be less agreeable. As in previous years we have maintained three groups here, viz.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Chinese Chess
    Computer Chinese Chess Tsan-sheng Hsu [email protected] http://www.iis.sinica.edu.tw/~tshsu 1 Abstract An introduction to research problems and opportunities in Computer Games. • Using Computer Chinese chess (aaaËËË) as examples. • Show how theoretical research can help in solving the problems. Data-intensive computing: tradeoff between computing on the spot and using pre-stored knowledge. Phases of games • Open game ( 開開開@@@): database • Middle game (---@@@): Search • End game (殘殘殘@@@): knowledge Topics: • Introduction • Construction of a huge knowledge base that is consistent • Playing rules for repetition of positions • Construction of huge endgame databases • Benchmark TCG: Computer Chinese Chess, 20141224, Tsan-sheng Hsu c 2 Introduction Why study Computer Games: • Intelligence requires knowledge. • Games hold an inexplicable fascination for many people, and the notion that computers might play games has existed at least as long as computers. • Reasons why games appeared to be a good domain in which to explore machine intelligence. They provide a structured task in which it is very easy to measure success or failure. They did not obviously require large amount of knowledge. A course on teaching computers to play games was introduced at NTU in 2007. TCG: Computer Chinese Chess, 20141224, Tsan-sheng Hsu c 3 Predictions for 2010 { Status My personal opinion about the status of Prediction-2010 [van den Herik 2002] at October, 2010, right after the Computer Olympiad held in Kanazawa, Japan. solved over champion world champion grand master amateur Awari Chess Go (9 ∗ 9) Bridge Go (19 ∗ 19) Othello Draughts (10 ∗ 10) Chinese chess Shogi Checkers (8 ∗ 8) Scrabble Hex Backgammon Amazons Lines of Action .
    [Show full text]
  • Including ACG8, ACG9, Games in AI Research, ACG10 T/M P. 18) Version: 20 June 2007
    REFERENCE DATABASE 1 Updated till Vol. 29. No. 2 (including ACG8, ACG9, Games in AI Research, ACG10 t/m p. 18) Version: 20 June 2007 AAAI (1988). Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium: Computer Game Playing. AAAI Press. Abramson, B. (1990). Expected-outcome: a general model of static evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 12, No.2, pp. 182-193. ACF (1990), American Checkers Federation. http://www.acfcheckers.com/. Adelson-Velskiy, G.M., Arlazarov, V.L., Bitman, A.R., Zhivotovsky, A.A., and Uskov, A.V. (1970). Programming a Computer to Play Chess. Russian Mathematical Surveys, Vol. 25, pp. 221-262. Adelson-Velskiy, M., Arlazarov, V.L., and Donskoy, M.V. (1975). Some Methods of Controlling the Tree Search in Chess Programs. Artificial Ingelligence, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 361-371. ISSN 0004-3702. Adelson-Velskiy, G.M., Arlazarov, V. and Donskoy, M. (1977). On the Structure of an Important Class of Exhaustive Problems and Methods of Search Reduction for them. Advances in Computer Chess 1 (ed. M.R.B. Clarke), pp. 1-6. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. ISBN 0-85224-292-1. Adelson-Velskiy, G.M., Arlazarov, V.L. and Donskoy, M.V. (1988). Algorithms for Games. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. ISBN 3-540-96629-3. Adleman, L. (1994). Molecular Computation of Solutions to Combinatorial Problems. Science, Vol. 266. p. 1021. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington. ISSN 0036-8075. Ahlswede, R. and Wegener, I. (1979). Suchprobleme. Teubner-Verlag, Stuttgart. Aichholzer, O., Aurenhammer, F., and Werner, T. (2002). Algorithmic Fun: Abalone. Technical report, Institut for Theoretical Computer Science, Graz University of Technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Olympiad
    The 7th Computer Olympiad Mark Winands IKAT, Universiteit Maastricht From July 5 to 11 2002 the Institute for Knowledge and Agent Technology (IKAT) organised the 7th Computer Olympiad at the Universiteit Maastricht (UM). Together with the Olympiad a Computer-Games workshop was organised. This event took place from July 6 to 8. Both events are described in this report. The Computer Olympiad The Computer Olympiad is a multi-games event in which all of the participants are computer programs. The Olympiad is a brainchild of David Levy, who organised this tournament in 1989 (London) for the first time. The next five editions were held in 1990 (London), 1991 (Maastricht), 1992 (London), 2000 (London) and 2001 (Maastricht). This year was the third time that the event was held in Maastricht. IKAT was responsible for the organisation. Similar to last year, Jaap van den Herik was the tournament director. The purpose of the Olympiad is to determine the strongest program for each game. The Olympiad has grown to a social event, as the authors of the programs are not bound to silence during the play as in human tournaments. The event is a reunion where programmers meet, discuss ideas and renew acquaintances. Some teams arrive with the clear goal of winning, some just come to participate, some to test new ideas under tournament conditions. The Olympiad is a truly international event. This year, participants came from all over the world: USA, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Israel and the European Union. The event was held under the auspices of the ICCA (International Computer Chess Association), which gave it an official status.
    [Show full text]
  • Crazy Stone Wins First UEC Cup 1
    Crazy Stone wins First UEC Cup 1 Crazy Stone wins First UEC Cup Remi´ Coulom Universite´ Charles de Gaulle, Lille, France The First UEC Cup took place on December 1–2, 2007, at the University of Electro-Communications, in Tokyo, Japan. It is a new computer-Go tournament, that was set up after the cancellation of the Gifu Challenge. The Gifu Challenge had been a yearly computer-Go tournament in Japan between 2003 and 2006, but was cancelled in 2007 because of lack of support by sponsors. With 27 programs participating, the First UEC Cup was the largest computer-Go tournament in a very long time. According to Nick Wedd’s list at http://www.computer-go.info/events/, it is the third in history, after the 1997 FOST Cup (40), and the 1999 CGF Cup (28). All participants were from Japan, except two invited programs from France, MoGo and Crazy Stone, that played with local operators. The tournament was organized in two phases. On the first day, a 5-round Swiss tournament selected the top 16 programs. On the second day, a 4-round knockout tournament ranked the 16 selected programs. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the results. Games were played with a time control of 40 minutes, sudden death, with Japanese rules and 6.5 points of komi. Game records may be downloaded from http://jsb.cs.uec.ac.jp/˜igo/result.html, and http://jsb.cs.uec.ac.jp/˜igo/result2.html. This first edition of the UEC cup confirmed the strength of Monte-Carlo programs. MoGo and Crazy Stone, who were first and second in the 2007 Computer Olympiad in Amsterdam, took the third and first places.
    [Show full text]
  • A Defensive Strategy Combined with Threat-Space Search For
    A Defensive Strategy Combined with Threat-Space Search for Connect6 k 2005 2006 ICGA Kagami ICGA Abstract The study of k-in-a-row games has produced a number of interesting results, and one of its sub-category Connect6 proposed in 2005 has been of particular interest. Since 2006, Connect6 has been included as one of the major com- petition in the ICGA Computer Olympiad, and is gaining more popularity every year. In this thesis, we briefly review current methods applied in Connect6 and related results. A defensive strategy is introduced along with a more strate- gically sensitive evaluation scheme. Threat-space search is an important algorithm applied in Connect6, some techniques for gaining more efficiency and accuracy will be introduced. The integration of the defensive strategy and threat-space search will also be investigated. The combination of the defensive strategy and threat-space search is proved to be effective, and is able to compete with other top Connect6 pro- grams. The program Kagami, which was implemented with these methods, won the fourth place in the 14th Computer Olympiads. Contents 1 Introduction 7 1.1 Connect6 ............................. 8 1.2 GoalandMotivation ....................... 8 1.3 ThesisOutline........................... 10 2 Related Results 11 2.1 TheFamilyofk-in-a-rowGames. 11 2.2 Variantsofk-in-a-rowGames . 13 2.2.1 Higher-DimensionalBoards . 14 2.2.2 The Connect(m, n, k, p, q)Family ............ 15 2.3 The Complexity of Connect6 . 15 3 A Defensive Strategy for Connect6 17 3.1 LocalityinConnect6 . 17 3.2 AnEvaluationScheme . 20 3.2.1 InfluenceofaStone. 21 3.2.2 EvaluationofaHalf-move .
    [Show full text]
  • CONFERENCE on COMPUTERS and GAMES 2008 Beijing, China
    CALL FOR PAPERS: CONFERENCE ON COMPUTERS AND GAMES 2008 Beijing, China September-October, 2008 Professor Xinhe Xu, Professor Zhongmin Ma, Professor H.J. van den Herik, and Dr. M.H.M. Winands Beijing, China Maastricht, The Netherlands The Beijing Longlife Group is enabling the organization of the Conference on Computers and Games 2008 (CG2008), the 16th World Computer-Chess Championship (WCCC) and the 13th Computer Olympiad (CO) (September-October, 2008) to be held in Beijing, China. Location: the Beijing Golden Century Golf club, Fangshan, Beijing, China. For the current information on the 16 th WCCC and the 13 th CO, see www.icga.org. A Chinese website will be opened as well. Below we focus on the CG2008. The start of the event will be at the Beijing Golden Century Golf club by the President of the Beijing Longlife Group. The conference will take place on three consecutive days, each day from 8.30 h till 12.30 h. The conference aims in the first place at providing an international forum for computer-games researchers presenting new results on ongoing work. Hence, we invite contributors to submit papers on all aspects of research related to computers and games. Relevant topics include, but are not limited to: (1) the current state of game-playing programs, (2) new theoretical developments in game-related research, (3) general scientific contributions produced by the study of games, and (4) (adaptive) game AI. Moreover, researchers of topics such as (5) cognitive research of how humans play games, and (6) issues related to networked games are invited to submit their contribution as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Olympiads in Informatics 4
    OlympiadsOlympiads Olympiads inin Informaticsin Informatics Informatics Olympiads VolumeVolume 4, Volume2010 4 4 2010 2010 B.A. BURTON. Encouraging algorithmic thinking without a computer 3 in Informatics B.A. BURTON. Encouraging algorithmic thinking without a computer 3 V.M. KIRYUKHIN. Mutual influence of the national educational standard and V.M. KIRYUKHIN. Mutual influence of the national educational standard and Olympiads in Informatics olympiad in informatics contents 15 olympiad in informatics contents 15 4 V.M. KIRYUKHIN, M.S. TSVETKOVA. Strategy for ICT skills teachers and V.M. KIRYUKHIN, M.S. TSVETKOVA. Strategy for ICT skills teachers and informatics olympiad coaches development 30 informatics olympiad coaches development 30 M. KUBICA, J. RADOSZEWSKI. Algorithms without programming 52 M. KUBICA, J. RADOSZEWSKI. Algorithms without programming 52 I.W. KURNIA, B. MARSHAL. Indonesian olympiad in informatics 67 I.W. KURNIA, B. MARSHAL. Indonesian olympiad in informatics 67 K. MANEV, B. YOVCHEVA, M. YANKOV, P. PETROV. Testing of programs K. MANEV, B. YOVCHEVA, M. YANKOV, P. PETROV. Testing of programs with random generated test cases 76 with random generated test cases 76 B. MERRY. Performance analysis of sandboxes for reactive tasks 87 B. MERRY. Performance analysis of sandboxes for reactive tasks 87 P.S. PANKOV. Real processes as sources for tasks in informatics 95 P.S. PANKOV. Real processes as sources for tasks in informatics 95 M. PHILLIPPS. The New Zealand experience of finding informatics talent 104 M. PHILLIPPS. The New Zealand experience of finding informatics talent 104 T. TOCHEV, T. BOGDANOV. Validating the security and stability of the grader Volume 4, 2010 T. TOCHEV, T.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Shogi 2000 Through 2004
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by DSpace at Waseda University 195 Computer Shogi 2000 through 2004 Takenobu Takizawa Since the first computer shogi program was developed by the author in 1974, thirty years has passed. During that time,shogi programming has attracted both researchers and commercial programmers and playing strength has improved steadily. Currently, the best programs have a level that is comparable to that of a very strong amateur player (about 5-dan). In the near future, a good program will beat a professional player. The basic structure of strong shogi programs is similar to that of chess programs. However, the differences between chess and shogi have led to the development of some shogi-specific methods. In this paper the author will give an overview of the history of computer shogi, summarize the most successful techniques and give some ideas for future directions of research in computer shogi. 1 . Introduction Shogi, or Japanese chess, is a two-player complete information game similar to chess. As in chess, the goal of the game is to capture the opponent’s king. However, there are a number of differences be- tween chess and shogi: the shogi board is slightly bigger than the chess board (9x9 instead of 8x8), there are different pieces that are relatively weak compared to the pieces in chess (no queens, but gold generals, sil- ver generals and lances) and the number of pieces in shogi is larger (40 instead of 32). But the most important difference between chess and shogi is the possibility to re-use captured pieces.
    [Show full text]