 | | C$
|
|
I bought my Connect-4 game yesterday. Last night, my son wanted to play, so we played a few games. I'm really starting to 'understand' the game. I won almost all the games. A couple things came to mind about the rules. It was suggested that if a (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) That's a good point. It would be sneaky to code these "accidents" to happen in the exactly right time. (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) wow Steve, you must be SO PROUD!!! you beat your son at connect-four, for "almost all the games" (...) I can not see in my mind how not not placeing a chip can be an advantage. and even if you can show me, the thought that someone might (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) Hey. :( Don't make fun of me. He's pretty smart for a 3 year old. Once I realized I could use both hands to put in my chips, I did it WAY faster than he did. (...) This just shows that you don't (yet) understand Connect 4. Consider a game (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) Obviously you don't know what zugzwang is. Its a move you have to make when a pass would be preferable. This is how nearly all connect 4 games are won. The winner forces the loser to make a move they would rather not make. (...) No. It can't (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) A phenomenally more complex suggestion (that I would probably prefer if I had all the programming resources in the world) would be: If a robot accidentally hits the 'End Of Turn' without dropping a chip into the gameboard, the opponent has the (...) (21 years ago, 1-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
Does anyone know whether a new set would have the interlocking pieces? (21 years ago, 2-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) This week, I got a set at TRU. It DOES have interlocking pieces. Last week, a friend got a set at Wal*mart. It DOES NOT have interlocking pieces. I don't know any more about the difference. Steve (21 years ago, 2-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) Are they both with blue legs and yellow board? Calum (21 years ago, 2-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) The one from TRU with interlocking pieces DOES have a blue & yellow board. (blue legs, yellow board) (21 years ago, 2-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) The form factor of the legs is the really important part. I've got the blue and yellow board with the interlocking pieces, and building around the legs has definitely been part of the challenge... btw-- light sensor readings on the pieces are (...) (21 years ago, 2-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) Yes indeed. I will ignore the interlocking issue by just loading them into individual chambers. (...) And speaking of using light sensor, wouldn't the robot on the other side can cause interference, intentional or not? (21 years ago, 2-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) I can conform this. I bought a C4 set at Walmart and it does not have interlocking pieces. The box is identical to Michael's (from TRU) and it even shows interlocking pieces on the front. The legs and board itself are the same I would assume. (...) (21 years ago, 3-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) Sure, it could be an advantage, but I'm going to outline all the stupid whining already: a) "But we already bought the interlocking ones!" b) "But we already own an interlocking one from my sister's son's best friend's toy collection!" We're (...) (21 years ago, 5-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) Or like me get both. :-) Use which ever you like, I don't think either type should be required or restricted. Derek (21 years ago, 6-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) Isn't this question already answered in the posted "rules" (yes, it is) (...) I was able to build a device that could easily handle the interlocking chips. And, for the record, the chips I was using seem to be very "LEGO-friendly" sizes. With (...) (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) Booooring. So far, without actually writing any of the code, it seems that our robot's logic code would be something around 10 lines of NQC script. And still be able to beat other robots :) How's that for trash? (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) TOO SLOW!!!! DAN-OH. I've already posted C$ code that beats out anything posted so far!!! if i was not uesing a SLOW 8088 laptop, and a web interface to post I'd search for the link Chris (21 years ago, 7-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) Has this question been answered? Will robots be allowed to not make a play? (unintentionally or otherwise) And, has a method of communication been decided upon? (IR or sensor toggle) (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) Given recent analysis of the game this should NOT be allowed. You must play or forfeit. (...) Sensor Toggle. Derek (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) I (still) think a sensor toggle would be the best route to go. Chris (21 years ago, 9-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) Single wire sensor (float/brake) toggle or else IR, imo. (Either is fine, since I'm using one brick -- might be more complicated for people with multibrick bots.) Although it would even be possible to do the double wire for me, just really (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) you just tell me what IR number to send your bot 1 - 10 and I'll send it to correspond with how smart my robot is. ;) Chris (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) I didn't think you could send negative numbers via IR...? ;) Iain (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | C$ board design
|
|
I had an idea for a way to mount the C-4 board, but I wanted to know what people think. The general idea was to remove the blue "legs" and build a LEGO replacement, instead of trying to come up with a way to secure the original legs to the ground. (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$ board design
|
|
(...) I like this Idea. If you can come up with something simple, that's made of generally available parts. ie. from the mindstorms kit I think it would be a much better solution. There would have to be clear plans for how to build it and where your (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$ board design
|
|
(...) As an outsider with no standing that seems like it ought to be disallowed, because if two bots that had the board built in were to compete, what would you do then? But a LEGO base seems nifty! (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$ board design
|
|
(...) Each robot would only be able to "build in" an attachment to the [left] side of the board. (as they face the board) The other side (right to me, left to you) would still be controlled by the other robot. I played around with a few ideas this (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$ board design
|
|
(...) If you read the rule set posted: (URL) find that the board mount is a common piece, separate from both robots. What Steve is proposing is to only use the yellow board without the blue legs and replacing the legs with a common frame design. (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$ board design
|
|
(...) All great stuff, but Steve seems to be saying "build the board mounding into their robot" which sounds like it goes into the yellow area in the diagram. That seems wrong to me, since it suggests that the robot is married/entangled into the (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$ board design
|
|
(...) He's probably just overstated his idea a little. Obviously the board can't be mounted permanently into one of the robots. However you can build a mount to connect to the common board to your robot. Derek (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$
|
|
(...) cute. :| (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$ board design
|
|
Using a non-standard board makes it a lot easier, since the primary challenge (as I've seen it) has been building a tower that rolls back and forth but is set back from the board enough that the legs don't interfere with it. I think it would be (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$ board design
|
|
(...) Well, personally, I'm not sure if it's more "classy" to drive a few screws through the legs of a Connect-4 board, a piece of wood, and a LEGO base-plate. :) But I agree it does change the rules of the game a little bit. However, using the (...) (21 years ago, 10-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$ board design
|
|
Here's the board mounting I came up with. (URL) made with parts from a single kit. But if you only have a single RIS, you'll only be able to make one board mount, and that won't leave any 1x16 beams for your robot... The top beam will flip down and (...) (21 years ago, 11-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
