Subject:
|
Re: Tic-Tac-Toe-bot
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.laflrc
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:52:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
811 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.us.laflrc, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> Ok, I've been thinking about the Tic-Tac-Toe game.
The only issue I have with it is, unlike C4, the "winner" (or lack of one) is
a foregone conclusion... *IF* the robot can actually play (as Steve & C4
demonstrated). Note I'm still in favor of doing it, just pointing that out.
> 1) What size is the game? We can play the regular
> game of 3-in-a-row on a 3x3 board, or we could bump
> the board to 4x4 (and still get 3-in-a-row)
3-in-a-row on a 4x4 board should take Kerby about 5 seconds, while walking
between classes, to figure out. I don't want games played *that* quick (three
moves).
Has anyone ever heard of a game called "Pente"? Think of a cross between Go
and horizontal Connect-5. It has the possible advantage of I don't know of a
general, powerful solution (like Go). Although obvious brute-force searches of
the game tree are always strong (against humans). Maybe a "simply" version of
Pente... hmmm...
> Should the cubes be 4x4x4 or 6x6x6?
Why not 3x3 cubes? I mention it because that does seem to work really well
for Project-X (and in any case, studs-down works well for self-centering).
Beyond that, I guess I'd prefer smaller cubes (lighter to pick up). That said,
you comment...
> Using 6x6x6 cubes on a 32x32 board, with an 8x8 area
> for putting your blocks, the board is 28 studs wide,
> leaving about 2 studs on the outside, one of which is
> used to attach your robot.
That sounds elegant - essentially a stand-along playfield out of common
elements (like 32x32 baseplates; I'd prefer that over 48x48 from the standpoint
of availibility and portability). But perhaps we should also talk about it in
terms of spacing between the blocks. Either there has to be enough spacing
between them for an EOAT to get "in between", or the EOAT has to latch (&
unlatch) from the top of a block. Again, smaller blocks might be helpful.
> what does everyone think?
Prefer 32x32, with at least two rows of studs to attach robots on east & west
sides. Between-block spacing of 2 studs or more (prefer more - 4?).
> I spoke with Kerby last night, and he said it took him
> about 1 class period to work out the logic for the game.
Tic-Tac-Toe can be played by an array of matchboxes that learn the game,
instead of having it programmed the logic in (although it takes, IMS, around 300
matchboxes (or variables)).
> hmm... I wonder what he SHOULD have been doing
> in that class... :)
I don't know, but it sounds like he's doing the same thing in his classes
that I did in mine :-).
--
Brian Davis
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Tic-Tac-Toe-bot
|
| (...) This would be a timed game. The winner would be the robot with the lowest average time-per-move. Actually, I was just thinking about it. Even that may not be a good comparison. I think robots should play each other twice, with each going first (...) (19 years ago, 29-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Tic-Tac-Toe-bot
|
| Ok, I've been thinking about the Tic-Tac-Toe game. Everyone I've talked to seems to think this will be a good competition for us to have early next year (after FLL). There are a couple questions to work out. 1) What size is the game? We can play the (...) (19 years ago, 22-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
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
|
|
|
|
