Joel Uckelman on Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:01:38 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [game-lang] review of GDL

Thus spake Marc Lanctot:
> The way I currently deal with imperfect information in my code is that I 
> have a function that translates a game state to a description of a 
> player's information set from that state (e.g. hides any information 
> that should not be seen by that user). Any implementation of the games I 
> have coded would just present this partial description. I think this is 
> what they were going for with "sees" in GDL-II, a recent paper at AAAI 
> that I linked and Joel relinked in one of his first messages.
> At this point I don't see much gain in designing a superset of GDL 
> rather than starting from scratch.

I'm still planning to read the GDL-II paper tomorrow, but I think 
we might be wanting something else.

My touchstone here is that whatever we come up with has to make
representing the rules for Battle for Moscow very easy, since it's
one of the simplest, smallest wargames there is:

If we can't do that, then we have no hope at all for something truly
huge like DAK or Terrible Swift Sword.

game-lang mailing list