[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

RE: AI and mice


The '30' was a 'political' decision - mediating between the Japanese 'search
everywhere and make a fast run right at the end' and the mice which found
the good route early through sheer luck!

I certainly agree that a point should arrive where the 'big clock' factor
should rule out making more and more attempts.

I suppose the real problem is that there are lots of sorts of contest and a
single measure isn't enough - horse races can be 'flat', 'steeplechase' and
'harness'.  That's why you need judges.

Cheers

John
-----Original Message-----
From: NickWSmith@cs.com [mailto:NickWSmith@cs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2000 4:24
To: johnbill@usq.edu.au
Cc: micromouse@dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk
Subject: Re: AI and mice


While I agree solving a known maze is deterministic I think a NN approach 
could be very valuable in the search phase.  I am not aware of anyone 
claiming to have an optimal searching strategy and I would be very
interested 
in any ideas people have.  Would it be possible to establish the minimum 
number of squares that need to be visited to be sure the fastest route has 
been found?  This could be a test of intelligent searching.

I have my own non-NN ideas for advanced searching but have not explored them

yet because the scoring system divisor of 30 for search times does not
reward 
intelligent searching enough.  I believe the divisor used to be lower and I 
do not know why 30 was selected.  Does anyone know?

I have a theory that the adjusted scores for every run of an averagely 
intelligent mouse should be constant.  That is, the faster later runs 
(including the scaled search time score) should get the same score as
earlier 
runs.  This should mean that more intelligent mice achieve reducing scores 
and less intelligent mice get increasing scores.  I looked at this on some 
old data and decided that a divisor of 7 for search times would be more 
appropriate than 30. A change from 30 to 7 would certainly give a more 
intelligent mouse more chance, although an intelligent fast mouse would 
obviously still win.