Hi Shlomi,
This is a separate reply to your other (second?) message.
<<Adrian, your mailer does not seem to have cut the long lines in this
message. Please fix its configuration for next time.>>
I don't understand what you mean by this.
<<It was not particularily weird - I just forgot to initialize a few
things.>>
I guess any bug that takes a long time to run down seems weird to me.
It had to me a very weird appearance until, first, I was able to define the
circumstances in which it was occurring, then, after all, you at first
didn't think it was there because you couldn't replicate it. Maybe a better
word than "weird" would have been "difficult". I'll point out, also, that
you didn't know it was there until I started doing extensive testing with
intermediate positions.
<<Actually, version 2.6 can run either with atomic moves, or without them.>>
Yes, I understood that.
<<Use of atomic moves seems to make it considerably slower.>>
That's not so good. I might want to do something to it so that it will
only run with an atomic move preset following an "impossible" verdict with
non-atomic moves. But for zero and one freecell, where a majority of the
verdicts will be "impossible", it should probably run with atomic all the
time.
<<I suggest we give the users a choice between several presets some of them
would be based on atomic moves and some of them would be based on
meta-moves.>>
I agree, and also I hope we'll find strategies tailored for the number
of freecells down to zero.
<<Are you sure you checked it against Patsolve's speedy mode? >>
Yes, Patsolve's speedy mode is very close in speed to FcPro's. But
Patsolve is still superior because it's (so far as we know) free from false
impossibles. FCS is twice as fast as them, but it's not really a fair
comparison, because FCS is presently false-impossible-prone. The real test
will be the comparison in FCS's best atomic move preset.
<<In any case, the development version of Freecell Solver, with the computer
generated solving presets, can solve
the MS 32,000 in roughly three times the speed of the best preset I could
find for 2.4.x>>
Oh, then, that's very good news. It means you have a factor of six
improvement over Patsolve's speedy mode. So if atomic moves slow it down by
less than a factor of six, you should still be ahead.
<<Like I said, I'll put it on my web-site. However, I do suggest that
Michael Keller's site would carry the most up-to-date version.>>
Mike Keller has been very silent lately. I think he's been having some
personal problems. You might recall that several months ago he raised
vehement objections to releasing FcPro on an open-source basis. I don't
think he realized, however, that the distribution of the source can be
handled in the way I am handling it. I've asked him a number of times
whether he'd object to what I'm doing, but he's never answered me. So I
decided to go ahead without his explicit approval. He has acknowledged that
FcPro is my own property (or mine and Wilson Callan's, but Wilson really no
longer has any interest), and I can do anything I want with it. But
previously he had threatened that if I released it open-source, he'd stop
providing it on his website. So I don't want to provoke him by urging him
to carry it. --- But furthermore, I don't consider the Solver Evaluation
Edition of FcPro to necessarily be a later "up-to-date version", It is a
different version for a different purpose, and not necessarily intended for
the general Freecell player's use. Depending on how the solver situation
resolves itself, I can see the possibility at some point in the future of
substituting FCS for the present solver, and having the standard release of
FcPro be with FCS as its only solver. -- But I don't know if Mike Keller
would necessarily go along with that if we had to make that version also
open-source.
Also, I don't know if Mike is regularly checking your forum. If he is,
we'll see whether or not he reacts to the posting of FcPro V6.5. I have no
objection to your writing directly to Mike if you want to, but I think it
would be better to wait to see if we get any reaction from him.
Best regards, --------------------Adrian
Received on Sun Jul 07 2002 - 03:31:42 IDT