On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 19:55:06 -0000
"dannyjones183" <dannyjones183_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- In fc-solve-discuss_at_yahoogroups.com, Shlomi Fish <shlomif_at_...>
> wrote:
> >
> > What seems to have been the problem is the fact that some
> > irreversible moves actually consist of two irreversible moves. I.e:
> > if we move the 2H from its original location under a non-parent
> > card to the foundations, then it would be equivalent to two
> > irreversible moves, because we may reach this in a different case
> > by first moving it into a freecell (one irreversible move) and then
> > moving it to the foundation (another irreversible move). So I need
> > to account for those in both the calculation of the rank of
> > irreversibility of a single move, and the number of irreversible
> > moves performed by the Horne's Prune's process.
> >
>
> I'm just rambling about a way to limit some of the irrelevant moves.
> Odds are, everyone has already implemented something equally
> effective. Consider a deal that's been recently discussed.
>
> ============================== Deal 17760
>
> ** ** *C *D *S *H
>
> QS 3H KS 5H 5C 2D TD 7H
> 5D JC JS 9H 6S 2H AH 5S
> 4H 3C TH 9C QC KH JH JD
> 8C 8S KD 6H QH KC TC 7D
> 3D 4S 9S 8D 2C AS 6C TS
> 9D 3S 6D AD QD 7C 7S 4D
> AC 4C 2S 8H
>
> Now, create array CardMoved[4+52] and initialize it to zero at the
> start of a deal. Note: the four extra entries are for the
> pseudo-cards placed in the home cells. After you move a card, you set
> CardMoved[card] to the current move number.
>
> I now add the constraint that you can only move a card on top of
> another card if CardMoved[moving_card] is less-than or equal to
> CardMoved[stationary_card]. (Note: automoves are exempt from this
> constraint.)
>
> Consider the scenario where I move the 7C from column_6 to freecell_a
> for my first move. I set CardMoved[7C]=1. I can no longer move the 7C
> to the 8H because CardMoved[8H]=0.
>
> Similarly, if later in the game I have CardMoved[5D]=17 from a move
> to a column/freecell, and CardMoved[4D]=13 from an earlier move to a
> home cell, then I can't subsequently move the 5D on top of the 4D.
>
Does it mean this state is marked as unsolvable? Because it seems that you will never
be able to solve it this way.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
> This approach doesn't prevent all irrelevant moves, but it does
> prevent a lot of pruning!
>
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Why I Love Perl - http://shlom.in/joy-of-perl
Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.
— http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mohandas_Gandhi (Disputed)
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
Received on Thu Aug 23 2012 - 07:32:14 IDT