On Saturday 03 February 2007 19:18, Gary Campbell wrote:
> 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."
I can remove the "unique" or rephrase it. It's not an issue.
However, regarding the text I deleted:
<<<<
It gives short (generally well under 100 steps), quick solutions to the first
million FreeCell games (using the standard game numbering scheme).
>>>>
"short" and "quick". This implies that the solutions of the other solvers are
not short and quick while yours are. And it is boasting.
<<<<
For more information, or to download this solver, follow one of the preceding
links.
>>>>
It is not good wikipedia etiquette to say such thing. If the readers are
interested, they will follow the link. Else, you shouldn't take the extra
effort to cajule them into downloading your solver.
<<<<
In addition to giving correct solutions to the first million games, it accepts
the entire 8-billion standard game numbers plus 3 "bonus" games
numbered -1, -2, and -3.
>>>>
Lots of large numbers in there... The boards that the solvers accept were not
mentioned for any of the other solvers. Now was the word "correct" mentioned
because it is assumed that unless the solver has bugs, it will give correct
results. Your description implies that there's something wrong with the other
solvers in this regard.
For the record, Freecell Solver accepts any arbitrary position as input,
including initial positions that don't exist in the MS Freecell range, or
positions at mid-play. That's also the case for Patsolve. So it's not an
advantage to your solver, but rather a possible disadvantage.
> Mine and
> other solvers also make sequences of moves with given objectives.
Which other solvers? But like I said I'm going to revise my description.
> I don't
> appreciate the fact that you deleted the text I added.
Feel free to comment about it in the discussion page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FreeCell
> I think the solver
> discussion in the Wikipedia should mention that the FCPro solvers give
> quite lengthy and virtually unusable solutions.
I think that's out of scope of the discussion there as it currently stands.
And it's also relatively subjective, insulting and flamebait. If you want to
start a different article (like "Overview of Freecell Solvers"), that may be
a better place to put it there.
> 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.
I've just ran FCS with the "Good Intentions" ("-l gi") configuration on boards
24, 1941, 1940 and 1 and in all cases the length of the solution was 135 or
lower. And these are atomic or column moves. I wouldn't call that "several
hundreds".
> 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."
"Industrial strength Freecell solvers". It's a game for God's sake. I'm not
familiar with anyone who got rich from writing a Freecell solver. And please
don't imply that my solver a "toy" solver. I've worked very hard on it.
> One of the latter is the solver
> by Danny Jones. I don't see that on your list.
Is Danny Jones' solver publically available in source or binary form? This
search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=danny+jones+freecell&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
implies that it isn't. If Danny would be kind enough to set up a decent
homepage for it, and hopefully make it available for download, then I can
link to it. Otherwise, I have nothing to link to.
> The results he has gotten
> from his solver pretty much put your solver to shame.
Until his solver is public, then most people will prefer to use mine or some
other publically available solver for their needs. A bird in the hand is
better than two in the bush.
> The more you hype
> Freecell Solver, the more criticism you open yourself up to.
>
I try not to hype Freecell Solver too much (I have much more productive things
to do). But I found your rant here very irrational (as I've demonstrated.).
Regards,
Shlomi Fish (who is going to fix the Wikipedia entry to make the world a
slightly better place.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish shlomif_at_iglu.org.il
Homepage:
http://www.shlomifish.org/
Chuck Norris wrote a complete Perl 6 implementation in a day but then
destroyed all evidence with his bare hands, so no one will know his secrets.
Received on Sat Feb 03 2007 - 10:55:53 IST