Advertisement

Grounding GDL Game Descriptions

  • Stephan SchiffelEmail author
Conference paper
  • 495 Downloads
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 705)

Abstract

Many state-of-the-art general game playing systems rely on a ground (propositional) representation of the game rules. We propose a theoretically well-founded approach using efficient off-the-shelf systems for grounding game descriptions given in the game description language (GDL).

Keywords

Game Description Language (GDL) Game Rules General Game Playing Propositional Network Propnet 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Icelandic Centre for Research (RANNIS).

References

  1. 1.
    Apt, K., Blair, H.A., Walker, A.: Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In: Minker, J. (ed.) Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, chap. 2, pp. 89–148. Morgan Kaufmann (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cerexhe, T., Rajaratnam, D., Saffidine, A., Thielscher, M.: A systematic solution to the (de-)composition problem in general game playing. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 195–200 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cox, E., Schkufza, E., Madsen, R., Genesereth, M.: Factoring general games using propositional automata. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI-09 Workshop on General Game Playing (GIGA 2009), pp. 13–20 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edelkamp, S., Kissmann, P.: On the complexity of BDDs for state space search: a case study in Connect Four. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 18–23. AAAI Press (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Schneider, M.: Potassco: the potsdam answer set solving collection. AI Commun. 24(2), 107–124 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Gelder, A.: The alternating fixpoint of logic programs with negation. In: Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 1–10. ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD (1989)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haufe, S., Schiffel, S., Thielscher, M.: Automated verification of state sequence invariants in general game playing. Artif. Intell. 187–188, 1–30 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kissmann, P., Edelkamp, S.: Instantiating general games using prolog or dependency graphs. In: German Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 255–262 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lloyd, J., Topor, R.: A basis for deductive database systems II. J. Logic Program. 3(1), 55–67 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Love, N., Hinrichs, T., Haley, D., Schkufza, E., Genesereth, M.: General game playing: Game description language specification. Technical report, Stanford University (2008). http://games.stanford.edu/language/spec/gdl_spec_2008_03.pdf
  12. 12.
    Michulke, D., Schiffel, S.: Admissible distance heuristics for general games. In: Filipe, J., Fred, A. (eds.) ICAART 2012. CCIS, vol. 358, pp. 188–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-36907-0_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saffidine, A.: The game description language is Turing complete. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games 6(4), 320–324 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schiffel, S.: Symmetry detection in general game playing. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 980–985. AAAI Press (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schiffel, S.: GGPServer (2016). http://ggpserver.general-game-playing.de/
  16. 16.
    Schiffel, S., Björnsson, Y.: Efficiency of GDL reasoners. IEEE Trans. Comput. Intell. AI Games 6(4), 343–354 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schiffel, S., Thielscher, M.: Automated theorem proving for general game playing. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2009, pp. 911–916 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schiffel, S., Thielscher, M.: A multiagent semantics for the game description language. In: Filipe, J., Fred, A., Sharp, B. (eds.) ICAART 2009. CCIS, vol. 67, pp. 44–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-11819-7_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schkufza, E., Love, N., Genesereth, M.: Propositional automata and cell automata: representational frameworks for discrete dynamic systems. In: Wobcke, W., Zhang, M. (eds.) AI 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5360, pp. 56–66. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-89378-3_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schreiber, S., Landau, A.: The general game playing base package (2016). https://github.com/ggp-org/ggp-base

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science/CADIAReykjavik UniversityReykjavikIceland

Personalised recommendations