Hi Jeff, Glad to hear you say "on average" in judging the algorithm's, because minesweeper is all about probablities, imo. Even the best algo could be foiled by an unlucky guess.
If you have an algo for this probabibility calculation, until you find a square with 100% safety, (or the safest square on the board), you have minesweeper solved as well as it can be. There are some situations which require a guess (similar to the first move), because no square can be ruled completely safe, just then. If you do your math right, you'll have the optimum probabilities - this is the only part of minesweeper that I find interesting. So the way I see it, the competition would be of no use. Either you can figure the probabilities for each square, or you can't. If you can, the program will find the best square, in time so small the program may not even be able to measure it. So, how's your probability math? :) That relationship between the number of mines a square is adjacent to, the number of mines adjacent to it that have been marked, and the number of squares still uncovered adjacent to that square, seems immediately crucial in figuring out what's safe, and how safe a square, really is. Good luck Adak --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Algorithm Geeks" group. To post to this group, send email to algogeeks@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/algogeeks -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
