Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Favorite Games


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#18 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 16 December 2004 - 09:34 AM

Yes well, the link is actually now a redirect to http://www.jellyfish-backgammon.com. But I thought Tormod would get a kick out of the original link as shown on the Help/ About screen. Sorry I copied it wrong. The new link does not reflect it's Norway connection.

#19 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 16 December 2004 - 09:41 AM

I did, I slept for six hours, a long time for me.

#20 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4228 posts

Posted 21 December 2004 - 08:55 AM

how about minesweeper. especially winXP one. And WORMS. my all time favorite. but only the 2D ones though.
I'm wondering what the psychological effects of playing computer games are..




Eventually, I'm not the only one who loves to play minesweeper!
But as I rebooted my computer I soemhow lost the game and didn't look for it yet.
What's your record in the one with 99 mines?
Mine is 140 seconds.

#21 TINNY

TINNY

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 842 posts

Posted 21 December 2004 - 09:30 AM

What's your record in the one with 99 mines?
Mine is 140 seconds.

hah! mine is 113 :D

Beginner - 3 (i got really lucky one time)
Intermediate - 34 (I've tried in vain for over 2 years to improve that record ever since)

i can't figure out the algorithm to generate randomly those mines.

Another good game is Go. Anyone played it? here's a good list of resources for it:
http://www.usgo.org/...es/computer.asp
here's a p2p one
http://www.mailchess.de/netgame.html
who wants to challenge?

#22 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 21 December 2004 - 10:34 AM

I once got 1 second on beginner, but that was just luck, my next highest is 6
Intermediate - 41
Expert - 150

#23 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 21 December 2004 - 10:45 AM

Eventually, I'm not the only one who loves to play minesweeper!
But as I rebooted my computer I soemhow lost the game and didn't look for it yet.
What's your record in the one with 99 mines?
Mine is 140 seconds.

Ah yes, I see I forgot to include winmine. I love the game and I use it while on hold all the time. I started with a game called "Hunt the Wumpus" on the TI99A. Similar concept. using a number in an exposed cell to determine the probablity of the location of something.

My best time which I have yet to get close to again for some years, was 98 secs on the 99 mine version. The only way I could get below 120 was to not bother checking off (putting the bomb symbol) on cells that were obviously bombs, letting them auto fill with the last non-bomb cell exposed and not "testing" (R/L button click) as many spots either. Knowing which to test that exposed the most other cells. And also to recognize certain "givens". such as finding that any 1.2.1 row of cells always has the bombs on both sides of the 2. Or the 2.2.1 pattern...

Question, how is the verion in XP different?

#24 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 21 December 2004 - 11:09 AM

i can't figure out the algorithm to generate randomly those mines.

Computers are not capable of random numbers. I found that statistically it is more probable for the mine to be on the bottom row then the 2nd to bottom in cases where there is no other identification. I have assumed this to be because of rounding. i.e. the 15th row would be any number between 14.5 and 15.5 while the 16th row would be any number 15.5 to 17. If the bottom (16th) row was found less, then they might not generate numnbers over 16 and it would be any number between 15.5 and 16. Reducing th3e probability of 16. Just as I find what I call "less elegant" is more probable. That is it is more probable that the bomb is in a spot that will resolve fewer conflicts. e.g. if it might be in one of two cells and one cell would fill two possibilities, while it takes two cells to resolve the two possibilities the other way, try the two cell choice.

Another good game is Go. Anyone played it?

Are these GO or GoMoKo? I had a GoMoKo one I played quite a bit. But just like a different version of Backgammon I had used, and very unlike Jellyfish, the algorythm was eventually apparent. I could beat the game every time once I found a set of moves. It would always respond predictably. I had it down to about 10 moves. Jellyfish does not do that. It learns. It is neural net based.

Another one I used to play was Reversi which suffered the same problem. I could eventually figure a series of moves that would always win. Lost interest.

#25 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4228 posts

Posted 21 December 2004 - 11:13 AM

Tinny, I played GO, but never long enough to start really understanding it and I played it in real, never on a PC.

Freethinker, well you got exactly the same tactics than I do, but why are you quicker? My compliments anyway quicker than a mine per second. I also always wondered if it is possible to get under 100 seconds, now I've got the answer. Actually once I was around 110 seconds and did a mistake on the last one.....


Does anyone of you know if it is findable on the net? I haven't tried yet so if you have to start to search I can do it as well.

And yes the difference in minesweeper XP is just the graphics.

#26 TINNY

TINNY

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 842 posts

Posted 21 December 2004 - 12:33 PM

i think i saw someone play minesweeper over distance on msn messenger where you take turns to uncover safe places.one with the most wins. i already deleted my messenger though.

Computers are not capable of random numbers.

ahh.. yes. it is completely deterministic. You'd need something metaphysical to make it random eh?

I had programmed in VB6 and noticed the numbers it generates is always the same. i noticed that when i tried to make a Snake game (the one you find on nokia phones) where i have to generate a random position of the apples.

#27 pgrmdave

pgrmdave

    Lurking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts

Posted 21 December 2004 - 02:02 PM

In order to make the numbers (appear) random, you would usually make it based off of the computer's time. Each time you ran the program you would get a different number.

#28 TINNY

TINNY

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 842 posts

Posted 21 December 2004 - 02:14 PM

In order to make the numbers (appear) random, you would usually make it based off of the computer's time. Each time you ran the program you would get a different number.

oh i see. i never thought of that. and probably to make it almost totally random, we make a chaos system which is sensitive to the initial conditions (time). so that numbers generated would not be proportional to the time.

#29 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4228 posts

Posted 22 December 2004 - 05:06 AM

Have you already looked for records of minesweeper in the net? I have and I decided to stop playing, it's just crazy here you find a video of a guy who did 44 seconds in the expert.
http://www.geocities.com/kaminwx/

#30 geko

geko

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 413 posts

Posted 22 December 2004 - 07:43 AM

I play command & conquer - recently got new comp so recently got generals zero hour. Been playing yuri for years.

Tried warcraft as well, Tim-lou, but never really got into it - it didnt have any tanks! lol

Going to get a first person shooter sometime - thinking about half-life 2, but gonna wait for f.e.a.r. i think.

#31 TINNY

TINNY

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 842 posts

Posted 22 December 2004 - 09:09 AM

Have you already looked for records of minesweeper in the net? I have and I decided to stop playing, it's just crazy here you find a video of a guy who did 44 seconds in the expert.
http://www.geocities.com/kaminwx/

i had just visited the site. sheeesh! no need for me to play minesweeper anymore. man... i thought i was pretty good at it. but hell...

#32 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 22 December 2004 - 09:15 AM

Freethinker, well you got exactly the same tactics than I do, but why are you quicker? My compliments anyway quicker than a mine per second. I also always wondered if it is possible to get under 100 seconds, now I've got the answer. Actually once I was around 110 seconds and did a mistake on the last one.....

It takes dedication. I would play over and over for hours. And the trick to break 100 is what you DON'T do. The more you can correctly assume, the better. And check the corners first. It's also a matter of whether the particular game WANTS you to win or not...... (That ought to start some interesting discussions!)

Now I just don't have the dedication. I even play the game sometimes ignoring the time. That took practice :-) Now I am happy if I break 160.

#33 Freethinker

Freethinker

    Resident Atheist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3064 posts

Posted 22 December 2004 - 09:23 AM

ahh.. yes. it is completely deterministic. You'd need something metaphysical to make it random eh?

:-) Good one Tinny!

by pure defintion, a "program" can not generate a random number. It can attempt to randomize it's output out of a database of acceptable numbers.

There are sources for highly randomized results. You might try:

http://random.mat.sb...inks/rando.html

#34 TINNY

TINNY

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 842 posts

Posted 22 December 2004 - 09:37 AM

:-) Good one Tinny!

:D