Subject:
|
Re: Brickgame [connect 4] algorithm
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:51:42 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
MATTDM@MATTDMstopspammers.ORG
|
Viewed:
|
120 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton <deaton@intdata.com> wrote:
> Ok, I'm a geek. I admit that. But now that I've got that out of the way,
> Anyway, that said, I've thought about writing (just for the heck of it) an
> algorithm for playing it. It seems to be pretty good-- I can beat it mostly,
> but usually it does a pretty good job, which rather suprised me, since it's
> a fairly simplistic algorithm.
I remember reading some years ago that this game has actually been solved;
that is, there is a way for whoever goes first to win every time.
*does google search*
Yeah. Victor Allis of Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam.
<http://www.cs.vu.nl/~victor/home.html>
<ftp://ftp.cs.vu.nl/pub/victor/connect4.ps.Z>
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Brickgame [connect 4] algorithm
|
| (...) Cool! I rather imagined that such might be possible-- And actually I suppose it wouldn't be *all* that difficult to write an algorithm to prove so, seeing that a game lasts no longer than 49 moves, and at each step, there are a max of 8 moves. (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Brickgame [connect 4] algorithm
|
| Ok, I'm a geek. I admit that. But now that I've got that out of the way, lemme say I've always loved connect 4, just because it's such a more strategic game (like checkers, rather) than one typically accounts for-- rather than say, tic-tac-toe, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
