This article was posted to the Usenet group alt.hackers in
1995; any technical information is probably outdated.
Parent Parent Parent gone
Re: Minesweeper solver
Article: 7822 of alt.hackers From: seebs@solutions.solon.com (Peter Seebach) Newsgroups: alt.hackers Subject: Re: Minesweeper solver Date: 15 May 1995 10:19:17 -0500 Organization: Solutions Online Lines: 30 Approved: me Message-ID: 3p7rdl$7ti@solutions.solon.com NNTP-Posting-Host: solutions.solon.com Status: RO
In article <3ordi5$qla@news.bu.edu>, Brad Heintz <bpheintz@bu.edu> wrote: >Peter Seebach (seebs@solutions.solon.com) wrote: >: I don't believe it. I think it's safe to say that there is no way >: to even start a minesweeper level without guessing. >Actually, *any* square you choose will be a free one. Try it. When you >think about it, it'd be sort of a no-brainer to implement. If you don't >get a "0" square the first try, though, the second one will be >guesswork. What I'd be interested to know, though, is whether or not >the solver mentioned earlier in the thread had a semi-smart >probabalistic guessing mechanism, or if it just guessed randomly when it >was stuck, i.e., did it ask "Based on the number of mines and the number >of untouched squares, am I better off choosing randomly, or going with a >square bordering a known square?" That's losedose minesweeper. *REAL* minesweeper doesn't give you that gaurantee. (Trust me. I've lost on the first move.) And yes, unless your first square is a zero, you still guess. The point is, even if you are *sure* your first square will be empty, you are guessing when you choose one - you do not have any proof of its emptiness, except for a general existentialist faith that the computer will cheat for you. -s -- Peter Seebach - seebs@solutions.solon.com -- seebs@intran.xerox.com C/Unix proto-wizard -- C/Unix questions? Send mail for help. Moderator - alt.religion.kibology, comp.lang.c.moderated Copyright 1995 Peter Seebach. Not for distribution through Microsoft Network.
Parent Parent Parent gone