My apologies to Gary and everyone else for going off on an unproductive tangent. My only excuse is an absence from working with freecell deals and logic.
Disabling a multi-card move, as I suggested, can easily be circumvented by replacing it with equivalent single-card moves. That's why my modified solver was still able to solve deals like #739671.
Moves 36 to 38 demonstrate my logical shortcoming:
#00739671 Attempt: 1 NumFcs=4 (WKR Super) 60 moves
6a 8b 8c 86 58 85 8d 84 24 c8
65 6c 68 d8 6d b6 d6 7b 76 7d
74 27 d2 25 72(8d 87 d7)1d 14
81 b8 18 78 17 d1 12 41 27 51
4b 4d 36 4h 24 2h 3h 25 d2 b2
3b 34 43 41 43 83 74 57 57 54
~~~~~
Regards, Danny
--- In fc-solve-discuss_at_yahoogroups.com, "Gary Campbell" <gary_at_...> wrote:
>
> 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
>
Received on Sat Sep 15 2012 - 21:52:54 IDT