On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Adrian Ettlinger wrote:
> Hi Shlomi,
>
> OK, here's what I see wrong with that analysis.
>
> If, starting with position A, following the first appearance of position
> B in the search, a position C occurs, and this position C is one which has
> occurred in the path from A to B, then the algorithm should abandon that
> path. If D is the position immediatly prior to this repeat appearance of C,
> it should revert to position D, trying another previously untried move from
> position D. Eventually, it could well return back to position B for trying
> another previously untried move from position B. If no path from position B
> leads to a solution, it will eventually revert to position C and try another
> previouly untried move from position C.
>
> Actually, that seems to be exactly what your code does. No position
> which matches a previously-found position is pursued any further. In fact,
> that seems to be a fundamental behavior required in any solver.
>
It is. But as you can see, it is possible that the solver would give up
trying to solve position B while in fact it is possible to solve it by
recursing into C.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
> Best regards, -----------------Adrian
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> fc-solve-discuss-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Fri Jun 28 2002 - 06:22:41 IDT