On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Adrian Ettlinger wrote:
> Ah, Bill, thank you for your understanding reaction to my pungent
> expression.
>
> The way Shlomi and Bill are both talking, my sense is that they are
> concentrating on the details of the architecture of solver design, and
> further that their analysis would only apply to an "imperfect" solver.
> To put it in pragmatic terms, aren't you both saying that a solver's
> solving algorithm could trap it into shutting itself off from exploring
> a winning path by the route which it took to reach a specific given
> position? I will submit that any solver that could do that to itself is
> improperly designed, or, to be more tolerant about it, is not designed
> with the goal of eliminating any chance of a false impossible.
Unfortunately the other possibility is that it would go around in circles.
And that is a much worse idea. If you want to check that an intermediate
position is solvable, you need to input it into a virgin solver.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
> For
> Shlomi's original objective of finding solutions to as many deals as
> possible in the shortest possible time, ignoring intractables (and
> considering them in the same category as "impossible"), such a solver
> design would be valid. But not for a solver whose objective is to
> provide a fully reliable verdict as to the solvability of any position.
>
> As to "game theory" and Shlomi's comment that a "game" must involve more than one player, I'm reminded of an astute comment Mike Keller once made about Freecell. That Freecell is not really a "game", it's more in the nature of a "logic puzzle".
>
> Best regards, ---------------Adrian
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish shlomif_at_vipe.technion.ac.il
Home Page:
http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Home E-mail: shlomif_at_iglu.org.il
He who re-invents the wheel, understands much better how a wheel works.
Received on Wed Jun 26 2002 - 07:31:57 IDT