--- In [email protected], "ChD" <chrndrnj@...> wrote:
count it scores 6. What's Swedish for "Zounds, foiled again!"? :-)
mathematically least poss moves, even if that was not achievable
using real words. In your example (with no rearranging), that would
be 4 which would score, say, 10pts. Thus your 7 move solution would
score (well, look at that ;-) 7pts. Obviously if you took more than
10 moves you would score zero (or perhaps a negative score).
This is a little cumbersome and I prefer moves=pts, least pts wins.
If having a lower score declared winner was anathema to you, you
could just use negative numbers. Allocating pts is really only of
benefit if you wish to determine a winner over a series of games.
M
>Fair enough. So TANK -> tang -> fang -> FLAG scores 4 not 3.
> Now I would count changing + rearranging = 2 moves
> curious & most rewarding approach. Miss the challenge of dislocatedNice twist! Probably a more meritorious solution but by your own
> vowels, though - but that could be compensated for by making
> rearrangement obligatory: TANK - gnat - fang - FLAG ;P
count it scores 6. What's Swedish for "Zounds, foiled again!"? :-)
> Carroll originally proposed a system for counting marks (with fewerYou could allocate max points (10, 100, googol, etc) to the
> steps = more marks) which was adopted by the paper, but it
> presupposes the smallest number of steps to be known. (The least
> steps found may suffice.) So either one knows the shortest solution
> already, or scoring must be relative until everyone gives up or a
> winning reference value is set - or one chooses LT counting.
mathematically least poss moves, even if that was not achievable
using real words. In your example (with no rearranging), that would
be 4 which would score, say, 10pts. Thus your 7 move solution would
score (well, look at that ;-) 7pts. Obviously if you took more than
10 moves you would score zero (or perhaps a negative score).
This is a little cumbersome and I prefer moves=pts, least pts wins.
If having a lower score declared winner was anathema to you, you
could just use negative numbers. Allocating pts is really only of
benefit if you wish to determine a winner over a series of games.
> All the bestAnd to you.
M