On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Danny A Jones wrote:
> Sure, glad to help. I hope the following answers your question.
>
> PatSolve -E -M96 solves it in 50 moves
> bfs-020 solves it in 37 moves
>
> #000536 Attempt: 1 NumFcs=4 (BFS Solver)
> 5d 68 5c 5c 6b 65 b5 45 6b 4a
> 16 46 7h 24 16 74 34 35 36 b6
> 26 d4 24 2d 3b 3h 84 74 37 13
> 23 87 8h 12 c3 1c 81
>
> This is probably optimal for an atomic-move solution. (I could run
> bfs-500, which takes 1.5 hours per deal, but I don't think its optimal
> solution will be any shorter.)
>
> I didn't list the fc-solve results because it is (primarily) designed
> for speed, and lists every move in its solution -- including automatic
> moves to home.
Hmmm... a small correction. FC-Solve is primarily designed for
functionality and only then for speed. By playing with its command line
flags it is possible to generate a great deal of unique solutions.
Adrian told me that one tester of Freecell Pro found the Freecell Solver
solutions to be quite innovative, and I was very happy to hear that.
> I just wrote a "translator" program that removes the
> automatic moves to home for PatSolve solutions, but I still need to
> write one for fc-solve.
>
Actually, there may be a foundation for it in the FCS+FcPro glue.
> If you have more questions about specific deals, you can contact me
> directly: dajones at inreach dot com . That way, others in the group
> won't get upset.
>
I don't get upset, and discussing such stuff is what's this group is all
about.
Danny, do you intend to make your solver available in source or binary
forms somewhere? (I can give you a web-space if that's a problem).
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish shlomif_at_t2.technion.ac.il
Home Page:
http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Writing a BitKeeper replacement is probably easier at this point than getting
its license changed.
Matt Mackall on OFTC.net #offtopic.
Received on Tue Sep 09 2003 - 12:53:36 IDT