In a message dated 12/8/01 8:38:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
aettlinger_at_worldnet.att.net writes:
> We seem to be entering a phase of work on FcPro where a version of it is
> evolving which we're calling the "Solver Evaluation Edition" FCS is, of
> course, the first addition, and we now have Patsolve partially integrated.
>
> We do not consider that the problem with playing back FCS move
sequences
> is a "bug". A better description is that it is an incompatibility between
> the two programs. We would not consider modifying FcPro itself to
> accommodate the move format of FCS. A solution to the problem would be
> possible, and the methodology which should be used would be to insert a
> layer of code in the interface software to convert the FCS moves into moves
> that would be usable by FcPro.
All very reasonable. FcPro shouldn't try to accommodate a myriad of move
sequence formats produced by disparate solvers. Each solver should convert
its own solutions to some universal format.
> The moves which could be fed into FcPro would not have to be moves that
> would conform to M/S Freecells multiple-card moves.
Good, because M/S multiple-card moves are severely defective.
> The best universal
> standard to adopt for interfacing move sequences, we have decided on
further
> analysis, would be single-card moves. After all, if one were to play
> Freecell with a "hardware" deck of playing cards, one would be moving one
> card at a time.
Please! If you have a single empty freecell and a single empty column, surely
you would pick up a four-card sequence and transfer it as a group from one
column to another.
> And FcPro can accept all moves as single-card moves,
> although there is one further wrinkle that would need to be added -- the
> automatic moves to the foundation, which are made by M/S Freecell and
should
> be made by any Freecell-playing software. These moves should be assumed to
> have been made by FcPro, and omitted from the moves delivered to FcPro,
> otherwise they can cause an error in some circumstances.
You have not described "Solver Evaluation," but SOLUTION evaluation. I assume
that FCS and FcPro and many more solvers will produce accurate solutions.
Evaluating the solvers themselves will require something more.
Let me suggest that if all of us are truly interested in pounding the
freecell problem into the dust, we must adopt a better format for solutions.
The format published on Keller's fine site has been useful. Now that several
solvers are about to enter the field, a more informative code would make
communication much easier. I am thinking of two changes. First, a symbol that
indicates which automove scheme to use. I know of three valid automove
policies. And second, each move should indicate how many cards to move in a
sequence. Something like this: 24-6 means six cards move from column 2 to
column 4; 35-1 means one card moves from column 3 to column 5. I don't
particularly care about the precise symbology, but I do think we all need
that kind of format.
Bill Raymond
Received on Sun Dec 09 2001 - 16:26:55 IST