 | | Re: C$: Knowledge-Based Approach
|
|
(...) although this game has taught me more about game theory than I care to discuss, I'm taking a wait and see approach re: Victor. I'm torn between openly discussing this with you, and keeping my "secret" a secret!! damn this competition. :) (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$: Knowledge-Based Approach
|
|
(...) You already posted your secret: Move = random(7) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$: Knowledge-Based Approach
|
|
(...) Ah haha. I know what you mean. My rule of thumb has been that if I think it's a strategy or coding concept that everyone is likely to come up with on their own, then I don't mind discussing it. Any specifics are out, basically. I don't care if (...) (21 years ago, 22-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$: Knowledge-Based Approach
|
|
(...) I disagree..... if I tell you that I ply 3 deep, you just have to code to 4 or 5 deep. you now have a better chance over me. if I say I have done the research and use the Slabovian concept, you know to counter with the "Upper Un-gabumba Land" (...) (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: C$: Knowledge-Based Approach
|
|
(...) I'm really trying to share. (hence, this thread) In fact, I'm willing to admit that my software can currently go 7 ply deep, for the complex middle-game moves, in under 30 seconds. That should be able to beat: move=rnd(7) Now, I just need to (...) (21 years ago, 23-Oct-03, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
