Usage

Play the game with lein run. Run the tests with lein test. Use lein auto test to re-run tests on save.

Design

AI algorithm

The AI is implemented as a negamax algorithm with alpha beta pruning. Though I originally strove to roll my own algorithm, the feedback I received on de-coupling my implementation from a 3x3 board created too many edge cases to implement through a series of heuristics. To limit the time the algorithm takes to run, I implemented a how-deep function that calculates a max depth of algorithm recursion to achieve a specified number of computations. If the program takes too long, that number can be decreased. I experimented with breaking the game tree into partitions and running them in futures. Apparently the overhead is too high, because it was faster even with deep game trees to avoid futures.

I have ignored the depth argument on a 3x3 board because there are too many late checkmates possible if the AI is player 2. Also, my original implementation could be beaten as player 2.

As a result of this refactoring, the number of full test games played in the tests had to be scaled back radically. At best, the tests offer some reassurance that refactoring has not broken anything. But to really field test the AI, it might take several hours.

I also re-implemented the original algorithm (play center else play random) and a purely random AI player. These AIs are available as opponents.

Program description

Bootstrap

The game begins by instantiating an implementer of the Bootstrap protocol. Bootstrap has a single bootstrap function. Here it is implemented by the make-bootstrap function in game.io.console-bootstrap. On starting the game, game.core calls make-bootstrap, and then calls bootstrap on the result. The Bootstrap protocol can be implemented by an alternative source of IO.

The bootstrap function returns a map containing the type of player for players 1 and 2, and the symbols for players 1 and 2. Bootstrap handles identical player symbols by appending (p1) and (p2) as appropriate.

The bootstrap function now also allows users to choose a board size. Boards can be any sized square, and the AI players and game management can handle it. I contemplated allowing non-square rectangles, but that raised questions about how the rules would work. How, for example, is a diagonal defined in an 11x4 board? Permitting any sized square seemed to me the most loosely coupled approach that is still recognizably tic-tac-toe.

IO provider

The companion to the console-oriented bootstrap function (which provides IO services before the game starts) is ConsoleIO, which provides the IO services for the game itself. ConsoleIO implements IOProvider, and offers a make-console-io factory function. The factory functions are collected in game.io.io-provider-factories, and the appropriate factory function is determined by a constant in game.core.

An IOProvider must implement draw-board, request-move-from-human-player, and publish-message. It is via these abstractions that the game.manager and the instantiated players can access IO facilities. Similarly to ConsoleBootstrap, ConsoleIO can be replaced with any other implementer of its protocol in order to swap out a console-based IO for some other IO. The new IOProvider should be registered in game.io.io-provider-factories and selected by the constant io in game.core. Previously, the legend presented to human players was formatted by different helper functions than the game board itself, but this has been refactored to use the same helper functions in a win for DRY-minded persons the world over.

The IOProvider instance is maintained in game.io.io-provider-singleton, as io-provider-instance beginning as a promise that is delivered by the -main function in game.core. This permits Players and other entities to access io-provider without it being an argument to Players that have no use for it. GameManager does not take IOProvider as an argument.

IOProvider now has a fuller test suite.

Player instantiation

Next, game.core uses the appropriate player type values in the map returned by bootstrap to call appropriate player factory functions from the lookup table at game.players.player-factories. Each concrete player implements the Player protocol, and so must implement that protocol’s get-move function.

Game management

Finally, game.core instantiates a GameManager, which implements Manager. This permits game management to be modular, in case we want to re-implement the game manager in some other way. Manager has a single function, run-game. Once the players and IO provider are instantiated, they are passed in to run-game, which uses them to run the game.

GameManager now no longer throws errors as a result of improper player implementations. I had thought this would ease the burden on Player implementers if their implementation was causing confounding stack traces coming from GameManger, but in fact the catch block was catching too many errors during development, causing GameManager to appear to be causing problems that were actually arising elsewhere.

GameManager’s loop has been refactored to abstract out much of its functionality, leaving mostly flow control and function calls.

One possible enhancement would be to pause an AI vs. AI game and await user input. This could be achieved by adding an {:ai true} to the record types representing specific players, which the GameManager instance could check when instantiating the players, and if both are :ai, passing an argument to the passed-in io-provider on each loop of run-game, triggering the IO to prompt the user to “Push any key” to continue the game. I decided not to do this because a user may not want to push a key repeatedly simply to see the outcome of a single game—plus, all the moves are visible by scrolling up on the console.

Mutability and state

I removed all mutability except for one set of tests, which models a player by mutating an atom of game moves. This too could be eliminated, but would be a bit less clean. The io-provider-singleton is a promise delivered at runtime, but is not mutable.

Overall, I consider this to be a much better approach, though it introduces a bit of incidental complexity. First, if the AI algorithm tracked which move number it was on, it could avoid checking for game states that could not exist at that stage of the game. For instance, if the AI were player 1 and were on its second move, it could assume that it had already played the center and avoid looking up that position on the game board. Also, one of the plays involving a “checkmate” can only occur if the AI moved first and it is the third round; a stateful AI could avoid several calculations by exploiting that. An alternative would be for the game manager to pass each player the round number. That approach, however, merely moves statefulness up a level or requires mutability—either the manager would need to mutate a counter, or the manager would need to count moves on the AI’s behalf (which is wasted effort if the player does not use that information, and violates the Single Responsibility Principle and Rich Hickey’s intonations against “complecting.”)

One further quirk of using pure functions is that the bootstrap function in game.io.console-bootstrap works in a roundabout way. That function builds a data structure representing the questions necessary to set up the game (What kind of player for player 1 and player 2? What symbols for each player?). The function then reduces over that data structure, performing IO within the reduction. The output is consumed by game.core to instantiate the players and pass them to game.management.manager/run-game, as described above.

A note on protocols

I made more extensive use of protocols than I have in any previous Clojure project. As pointed out in this blog post, polymorphism may be easier to achieve by passing functions as parameters. Following this pattern, the functions that belong to each protocol could simply be standalone functions defined in a namespace appropriate to each concrete version of one of the abstractions (Player, Game, and IO).

The reason I took the approach I did is that the SOLID approach is new to me, and I sought out information about SOLID principles as applied to Clojure. The materials | I | found relied heavily on protocols, and so I did too.

A benefit of my approach is that it brings the advantages of design by contract. Relying on higher-level functions would require the passed-in functions to have the correct signatures, but would lack a compile-time check that the implementation is correct (unless checked by a {:pre}).

I considered subdividing the protocols further, in keeping with the Interface Segregation Principle, but I think the Player, Manager, and IOProvider are the right level of segregation.

Finally, I chose to use defrecord rather than deftype based on the advice that deftype “is fundamentally intended to be used to define low-level infrastructure types, as might be needed for implementing a new data structure or reference type; in contrast, maps and records should be used to house your application-level data.” Chas Emerick, et al., Clojure Programming 227 (2012) available here.

Ethan826/tic-tac-toe_coding_challenge

ErrorLooks like something went wrong!

About

Resources

Uh oh!

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

Packages 0

Languages

Error
Looks like something went wrong!

Packages