Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Klondike/Othelo
From: BlueChip <cs_bluechip_at_webtribe.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:25:52 +0100
>>I have been told the missing attachment was my fault (and not, as I
>>suspected, stripped by the mail server) so hopefully it is attached this
>Does the Rockbox list accept attachments? I know it doesn't like HTML...
Linus & Jo"rg both suggested that the list should accept attachments under
40K, maybe it doesn't like the filename or something? <shrugs>
I will try to sort something out later tonight - if not I will take care of
it after the weekend.
>>We can JUST ABOUT (8*14=112) get 8 cards across the screen - it would
>>look a little packed, but it should be possible.
>>If you're into solitaire games you might enjoy this link:
>>Othelo, yes I really should get around to fixing that... There's been a
>>whole load of political malarky going on off-list recently which has
>>kinda damped my whole enthusiasm thing - I suppose the logical argument
>>is that I should not let politics intefere with pride ;)
>>Did you particularly want it [pass] as an option, or would it be
>>acceptable for me to just fix it to conform to the ruleset used by
>>everybody in the world except me-and-my-mate-when-we-were-kids?
>Either way is fine with me, I mean, I wouldn't want you to have to change
>it to a way that you as the author don't enjoy playing! But whatever's
>easiest for you. I've got zero programming skill, so I figure I can't be
I would rather the game were technically rather than aesthetically correct
- options are nice, but menus are boring to write.
>>By the way - how good have you found the AI players to be - It would be
>>nice to have someone who can actually play to pass comment :)
>They're not the toughest I've ever played against, but they're pretty
>good. I can beat C-3 around 9 times out of ten, but I'm a pretty
>experienced player. A more advanced mode would be a welcome addition, but
>I still have fun playing C-3. In fact, sometimes the easier modes pose
>more of a challenge since they will make unexpected moves while C-3 tends
>to follow its algorithm pretty strictly, and is more predictable.
C-1 is Mr Random Move himself. But I certainly suggest you play a little
more against C-2. It would be fairer to say that (s)he plays "differently"
from C-3, rather than "poorer" - I have sat and watched them play each
other and the outcome is certainly not conclusive from the outset.
The engine works by generating a list of all valid moves and applying a
reduction algorithm to that list, currently based on weighting of
advantageous board positions - if the reduced list has multiple options,
then the perverbial coin in perverbially tossed.
I considered writing a look-ahead player, but the result is a memory-hungry
program - the perfect player is easy to write (for any game, including
chess) but the memory requirements (especially in chess) can get ludicrous
- and the calculation can take an age of Sundays.
The next problem is my (lack of) skill at the game in real life. So if you
can make any suggestions about the mistakes made by the computer - it may
be possible to create a C-4? I could reap the net for ideas - but that
kinda sucks the fun out of it.
>Oh, and one other suggestion I'd like to make, how about an option to
>force the computer to make the first move? I know you can change from H-0
>C-3 to C-3 H-0, but then I have to get my head around playing as white,
>and it messes me up.
>The game can change radically depending on who makes the first move, it'd
>be nice to have the option to change up now and then.
Perhaps when I add the "pass" code I can add the option for the first move
of the game to be a pass :)
>But in any event, even if none of these changes ever appear, I still have
>a lot of fun with the existing version. Thanks for writing it!
Thanks for the great feedback - it's what makes it all worth while :)
PS. I think I've just had a cute idea to help the computer outwit you a
little more ...watch this space :)
Received on 2004-04-29