Hi Danny,
sorry for the late response.
On 10 Jan 2014 10:46:55 -0800
<dannyjones183_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Something you might consider is the minimal depth known when three
> >> freecells are used. The minimum depth needed for two freecells would
> >> probably exceed this value.
>
> > Well, using what kind of moves? Atomic? Multi-column moves?
>
>
>
> The same types of moves you'd allow in your distributed DFS.
Well, I'm planning to use atomic moves with a move-to-foundations prune.
>
> Actually, my suggestion doesn't matter anymore. I found a 40-move solution to
> #384243 w/3 freecells. This is considerably shorter than the 80 moves
> generated during Pass 1 of my BFS solver when using two freecells. So, it
> would be difficult to estimate the maximum depth attainable during a DFS w/2
> freecells.
I think I understand.
>
> I am about to create a version of my BFS solver that limits the number of
> times a "primary card" can be moved. I'm concerned about cards moving in
> "cycles" while being intermixed with other moves. It makes for a nightmare
> scenario. A scenario that, if I can block these cycles, would extend the
> number of moves my solver could examine. Unfortunately, it doesn't guarantee
> that all layouts have been examined.
Well, I strongly suspect that #384243 is unsolvable with 2 freecells, and I'm
trying to prove whether or not this is the case. If your solver is going to
report that it could not solve the deal, then we won't be much smarter,
because it won't be fully conclusive. Good luck, though.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Free (Creative Commons) Music Downloads, Reviews and more - http://jamendo.com/
XSLT is what Chuck Norris has nightmares of.
— http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/XSLT/
Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
Received on Mon Jan 20 2014 - 03:32:01 IST