Subject:
|
Re: Connect Four game issues
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:55:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
608 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 04:46:36PM +0000, David Eaton wrote:
> So, it would still appear that unless there's a non-look-ahead
> algorithmic way to win (that I'm sure some game theorist might be able
> to come up with), chances are people's algorithms will have at least a
> chance of losing since they have to fit into less than (say) 20 RCX's.
Speaking of fitting stuff into 20 RCXs, is there a limit in this game
for how many RCXs can be used?
If not, doesn't that kill the idea that we can put the RCXs fact to
face, to communicate with the opponent? Dang. I liked that idea better
than using up a sensor port.
(yes, really, we're thinking of entering a robot, if we'll be allowed,
that is :)
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Connect Four game issues
|
| (...) I don't believe so! (...) You bring up a good point we haven't touched on yet. If we do opt for an IR "your turn" signal (which, from what I've been reading, is what we're steering away from now), we'll have to assign numbers to people to use (...) (21 years ago, 16-Sep-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Connect Four game issues
|
| (...) [butting in] By my calculations there are 261,827 distinct states the board can be at by the 8th move (184,868 board combos for turn 8 itself). I don't have numbers for further states, cuz, well, it was taking too long for my program to (...) (21 years ago, 16-Sep-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
72 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
|
|
|
|
