And it would be helpful to me if someone could explain why the number of checks/tests/calculations one has to do does not rise linearly with respect to area. So I guess this raises the next question which is: where is the flaw in my logic?ĮDIT 3: I really am more interesting in the odds than in the algorithm to solve minesweeper.
It would seem to me that in general no more than 9 blocks need to be considered (the high end of what i've see playing minesweeper at expert) to determine ifĮDIT 2: This would also seem to contradict the fact that minesweeper is NP complete, and with probably not so much work one (maybe even I, but probably not) could write an algorithm that can play a perfect game of minesweeper that would have a linearly increasing runtime which would contradict (summery of) the paper here. I would assume (though without any real proof) that a program could be written that could solve minesweeper in linear time (as the board gets bigger linearly, if the mines/area ratio stays the same). Rather hoping there is a clever way to do this, but I will not be so surprised if there isn't. How would someone go about doing this? Assume that the first "click" will never be a bomb, and that the number of mines and the area are both known.
0 kommentar(er)
