Danny,
I seem to remember a deal you once showed me where a 3-card (sequenced) column had to be moved to an empty column (2 cards), leaving behind a singleton in order to effect a move. If I understand your scenario, N=3, and M=2 in this case. If disabled, the solution would be blocked. Does this ring a bell? Should I go back through my notes to find the exact deal? -Gary
From: dannyjones183
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 1:52 PM
To: fc-solve-discuss_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Interesting Observation
I've been tinkering with the logic in my freecell solver. Along the way, I kept wondering if the following scenario is ever "needed" to solve a deal.
Scenario: A column has ( N > 2 ) cards and they are all properly ordered. It's also possible to move ( 1 < M < N ) cards to another column -- occupied or empty.
So, I finally broke down and ran the first 1000000 deals with this scenario disabled. Interestingly enough, it didn't seem to impact my solutions. In fact, my solver executed faster because it didn't have to process extra layouts that would have been generated by this scenario.
Unfortunately, I can't guarantee that some higher deal might need this scenario.
Regards, Danny A. Jones
BTW: My memory resembles "swiss cheese", so please forgive me if this is old information.
Received on Sat Sep 15 2012 - 14:16:39 IDT