In response to Shlomi Fish:
I don't consider the description that WAS in the Wikipedia of my solver to be any
more boastful than the description of yours as "unique." Mine and other solvers
also make sequences of moves with given objectives. I don't appreciate the fact
that you deleted the text I added. I think the solver discussion in the Wikipedia
should mention that the FCPro solvers give quite lengthy and virtually unusable
solutions. No human wants to follow the several hundred steps that usually
result in order to get at what's really required to solve a given layout. If someone
wants a solution that can be understood, they want one that is under 100 steps.
This is a major contribution and it should be stated. There are a lot of "toy"
solvers and only a very few of "industrial strength." One of the latter is the solver
by Danny Jones. I don't see that on your list. The results he has gotten from his
solver pretty much put your solver to shame. The more you hype Freecell Solver,
the more criticism you open yourself up to.
-Gary Campbell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shlomi Fish" <shlomif_at_iglu.org.il>
To: <fc-solve-discuss_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 4:24 AM
Subject: Re: deal # 665
>
> I also had to fix a ravish link you've placed in the wrong place in the
> Wikipedia page about Freecell:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FreeCell&diff=29284703&oldid=27609599
>
> Now I see that the description for your solver (where I moved it to, though),
> is much more boastful and not Neutral-Point-of-Viewish. Did you do that?
>
Received on Sat Feb 03 2007 - 09:21:00 IST