[Reply to Bill Raymond]
<<Are you writing of moves internal to the solver, or moves expressed in a
printed solution???
The expressed moves in the solution that is output to the user. If you
have a copy of FcPro, you could easily observe the move pattern.
<<I don't know what FCS's solutions look like, but this sounds like FcPro's
failure to apply its automove function.>>
This had to do with an ace being in a freecell. I guess the real
problem was that FcPro never thought an ace would be in a freecell because
it would never put one there.
<<I'm DESPERATELY trying to alert all of you that (1)(a,b) is a DISASTROUS
limitation that MUST NOT be allowed to HANDCUFF us forever.>>
No, I really do not understand the reason for any excitement on this
issue. This does not have anything to do with the solver's ability to find
a solution, does it? Isn't this entirely a matter of "publishing style", i.
e., how the solution is to be presented to the user?
<<I call it "Raymond's Rule" because I worked it out, implemented it, and
discussed it with others before anyone else thought about it.>>
What is the nature of the "rule". Is it a formula which yields the
number of cards that can be moved from a source to a destination, the input
parameters being the number of empty freecells and the number of empty
columns? It is my impression that FcPro has this maximized, but if not, I'd
be interested in knowing in what respect it is not.
Do you consider it legitimate, to squeeze out a higher yield, to make
part of the move a shift of a single card to or from a freecell to or from a
column? I. e., if one has three and one vacant spaces, changing it to two
and two allows more cards to be moved.
The idea of maximizing the number of cards that can be moved by one
source-destination command is nothing more than providing a convenience for
the player. It does not make-or-break the process of finding a solution.
Whether it really provides a useful shortcut for a solver to use is another
question.
Best regards, --------------Adrian
Received on Mon Dec 10 2001 - 20:57:12 IST