• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

CT Only: Eurisko and TCS

Agreed, but if the battle software can't effectively fight the different fleets, we can't select the better mutations. The Eurisko class might be evolved this way, but hardly the entire fleet.

You could fight fleets with a genetic algorithm and a monte-carlo sim. You could have genes for the design and genes for the battle line. However, on reading into EURISKO a little further it sounds like an expert system (of a type that were all the rage around that time and could get ARPA funding).

http://aliciapatterson.org/stories/eurisko-computer-mind-its-own

From the article I think it may still have been using a monte-carlo model to resolve the battles but I think it was using an inference base to optimise the ships. You can do that sort of thing with backward chaining. In fact, in an AI course I did once, one of the other students did this with battle lines for medieval forces.

You could have a process for optimising the ships, and then taking the fleet into a battle against another fleet and trying different line compositions. Depending on how well EURISKO joined up the dots these computations could be integrated into a single larger model. From the article it was basically a knowledge representation language, so if you could implement frames with rules that allowed collections or splitting collections you could try different lines. Certainly Prolog is smart enough to generate frames to try by splitting other frames or making up different collections. That's a small enough problem to fit into an undergraduate assignment.

EURISKO is written in RLL, a frame based language according to Wikipedia (I've used FLEX, a frame based system that sits on LPA Prolog). These systems are turing complete and you can generate new frames programatically - you could use this to try different combinations of battery size and count. Backward chaining lets you search through a wide variety of combinations. As long as you have an evaluation function that can determine fitness (e.g. a battle simulation) you could use an algorithm as basic as minimax to optimise battle strategy.

So, as it stands now, I can see two ways you could optimise a fleet using fairly mature and well-known AI techniques. Either a frame-based knowledge representation like EURISKO or with a genetic algorithm. Battles could be calculated based on an evaluation function (compute a result surface for hits and damage based on a range of parameters) or by running a monte-carlo sim of the model.
 
Last edited:
I've got a couple of quotes I can share that might or might be meaningful here.

Don McKinney said:
I asked Loren once why, if the resulting designs from EURISKO were so bothersome, why they didn't ask Doug Lenat to identify what changes to the rules would result in designs more like what they wanted to see. His response was "um... because we didn't think to ask?".

Ah well... I suspect Doug Lenat was seen more as a pain in the A** than a possible help.

Marc Miller said:
No one understood Doug as a real-world genius... we meet so few of them.

Ultimately, his researches identified that the world can program AI to address closed finite systems, and he treated HG as a closed finite sysetm.
In the long run, the lesson that Doug Lenat learned, and the challenge he has addressed in the 25 years SINCE his Eurisko expriements, is this...

how do we create AIs that can include all of the other social contexts, unexpressed cultural contexts, and underlying assumptions that organic intelligences 'know'.
He hasn't solved that yet.

So his pioneering work with HG and TCS defined the current problem with AI.
 
In 1981 you wouldn't have been runing monte-carlo simulations on anything much smaller than a VAX.

Lenat was probably doing his stuff at university, where VAXen thrived. His code probably crunched numbers and came up with trends. Lenat's bio on Wikipedia mention blackboard systems and the like; simulation code was probably bare frameworks that simply did the hard work, and he and perhaps a club came to their conclusions based on that.

Results probably suggested a few designs and strategies, which he noted and took to the tournaments.
 
You could fight fleets with a genetic algorithm and a monte-carlo sim. You could have genes for the design and genes for the battle line. However, on reading into EURISKO a little further it sounds like an expert system (of a type that were all the rage around that time and could get ARPA funding).
You are more knowledgeable and seems to have considered this more, so I will trust you and conclude I was wrong, if still slightly sceptical.
 
You are more knowledgeable and seems to have considered this more, so I will trust you and conclude I was wrong, if still slightly sceptical.
I'm not a specialist in this field by any means, but I did do a paper on 'traditional' AI, another one that dipped into machine learning and a couple that covered simulation models. My prof for AI (he was actually a prof) was from the era when LISP, PROLOG and expert systems were all the rage so I've worked a little with technologies not wildly different to the platform EURISKO was built on.

I can see a couple of different ways that you could build something functionally equivalent to the EURISKO model and from the (admittedly brief) literature I think I can see roughly how it worked. However, you could do an entire postgraduate degree specialising on this kind of AI tech and it would probably take me quite a bit of frigging around to figure out how to make something that could optimise a TCS fleet in the way EURISKO did.

That notwithstanding, you can certainly buy software off the shelf today (e.g. LPA PROLOG and FLEX) that would let you build something like EURISKO.
 
Do you still have that TCS software?
I don't think the author ever released it as a freebie. As far as I can tell he attempted to flog consulting work around it but I have no idea what he's up to now or what became of the software. It was nearly 40 years ago.
 
Back
Top