I had this thought during class, but I wasn't sure if it was necessarily relevant to the lecture.
Do agents like deep blue always assume an optimal opponent such as Kasparov? It seems to me that one would be able to deduce the expertise level of an opponent using the existing information of the game tree and analyzing the opponent's moves. Like the example you gave in class, If Kasparov would take 10 minutes to make a move against a 5 year old, we would consider it silly; If deep blue saw that the opponent kept making moves that were highly in its favor (mistakes) could we use that information to make the agent execute moves more suited to the situation? Rather than assuming that it's playing against a grand master and using min max, we can calculate the possibility of the opponent making an arbitrary (non optimal) move and make "bolder" moves as a result? Or does deep blue already make optimal moves regardless of the skill level of opponents?
Sent from my mobile device
Friday, April 20, 2012
Re: Question related to previous lecture.
Opponent modeling is done a lot of time (and for games like Poker, it is pretty much de rigueur. )
It may be less critical in chess where, at least at the grand master level, "optimal opponent" is a reasonable assumption.
I don't off hand know whether Deep Blue did opponent modeling to any extent--the classic reference on
Deep Blue is this paper:
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Juan Guzman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: