 | | Re: Tic-Tac-Toe-bot —Brian Davis
|
| | | (...) 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. (...) 3-in-a-row (...) (19 years ago, 22-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Tic-Tac-Toe-bot —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Tic-Tac-Toe-bot —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) What about Othello? That requires the robot to be able to place AND reverse the pieces. Not sure if 8x8 would produce very interesting matches, maybe a smaller board? Even 4x4 may produce interesting strategies... ROSCO (19 years ago, 29-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Tic-Tac-Toe-bot —Bryan Bonahoom
|
| | | | 3T - good name... 32x32 plate for the game sounds exceptional...you could break it into 10x10 squares with a 1 stud width divider...no edge markers (would add a little to the challenge maybe) Size of the cube: Using odd size cubes (3x3, 5x5, 7x7) is (...) (19 years ago, 30-Sep-05, to lugnet.org.us.laflrc, FTX)
|
| | | | |
