Shlomi,
All in good time. I'm keeping a detailed log, but would rather
proceed than publish at this time. However, if you want to
get more specific on your algorithms, I'll be glad to comment
in more detail -Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: Shlomi Fish
To: fc-solve-discuss_at_yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 12:57 PM
Subject: Re: Adapt the scans based on the parameters of the initial board.
Hi Gary!
On Monday 28 Dec 2009 18:36:15 Gary Campbell wrote:
> I feel like I ought to respond, given that I've been trying for almost
> 3 years to beat the performance of the solver I released 3 years ago.
OK.
> I've tried a lot of things similar to what you are suggesting, and have
> abandoned them.
OK, without the code, your research and your performance data, which I can
examine and verify, I cannot just believe you like that, and will proceed to
investigate it in time. Not now - first things first I'd like to see why the
simulation of the meta-scan yields differenting results in the actual run, and
then I'd like to integrate patsolve's atomic moves scans.
> I believe I'm working on the most likely-to-succeed
> approach yet. Very roughly it involves gathering 14-bits of data on
> each viable alternative move at any given "board layout." This data
> is used to index various lookup tables (256 to 1024 bytes in length).
> The lookups are extremely fast, and the initial data can be computed
> at a rate several times as fast as my old version processes moves.
Interesting. Care to share more details? It's hard to understand from it what
it's all about.
> I'm in its neighborhood on solution length and processing speed, and
> expect to beat it on all measures with this approach. -Gary Campbell
>
Good luck.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Shlomi Fish
> To: fc-solve-discuss_at_yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 7:30 AM
> Subject: Idea: Adapt the scans based on the parameters of the initial
> board.
>
>
>
> Hi all!
>
> Shortly after I worked on the meta-scan optimisation (see the previous
> messages), I came up with this idea to further improve the Freecell Solver
> performance:
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> * Adapt the scans based on the parameters of the initial board.
>
> ** Try to find a correlation between various parameters of the initial
> board (such as those calculated in the A* scan or the number of steps
> required to sort the cards in each column by rank), and the performance of
> various scans and then:
> +
> 1. Calculate the initial parameters on startup.
> +
> 2. See what would be a good meta-scan based on them.
> +
> 3. Use it.
>
>
> Any comments?
>
> Regards,
>
> Shlomi Fish
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Interview with Ben Collins-Sussman - http://shlom.in/sussman
Bzr is slower than Subversion in combination with Sourceforge.
( By: http://dazjorz.com/ )
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Received on Wed Dec 30 2009 - 08:04:13 IST