I think other readers will conclude correctly which of us has gone on a rant here.
The phrasing I chose for the Wikipedia wasn't boasting, nor was it a put down.
It simply expressed some relevant facts. I guess they must be facts that you
would rather suppress. Anyway, this is more than sufficient for this thread, so
take your usual last word and we'll be done. -Gary Campbell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shlomi Fish" <shlomif_at_iglu.org.il>
To: <fc-solve-discuss_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia Changes
> 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.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Received on Sat Feb 03 2007 - 12:01:44 IST