At Fri, 5 Sep 2008 02:59:08 -0700, Charles Gray wrote: > > Gee, that was easy. Thanks. I never guessed that you had to leave > the #'s off inside the array.
I still wonder what version of image you are using. In the image I'm using, I can evalute: #((0 0 0 0) (0 0 0 0) (0 0 0 0) (0 0 0 0) (0 0 0 0) (0 0 0 0) (2 1 0 0) (8 4 0 1) (14 6 0 2) (30 12 1 4)) = #(#(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(0 0 0 0) #(2 1 0 0) #( 8 4 0 1) #(14 6 0 2) #(30 12 1 4)) and get true. > Those particular numbers > don't mean anything. They were just an example of my problem. In my bridge > dealer program, there are four sets of values > assigned to each card. The first two numbers give the relative strength of a > card when playing in a suit contract and > when playing in a notrump contract. The numbers are based on the extensive > double-dummy analysis performed by Thomas > Andrew. The third number is is what some players of the Moscito bidding > system call AKQ or slam points, and the fourth > number is simply a binary representation that I use for determining loser > count. I wasn't trying to be sneaky. The real > numbers from 8 up to ace are: > #((2 1 0 0) (4 3 0 1) (10 6 0 2) (23 14 0 4) (43 27 1 8) (74 51 2 16) (115 82 > 3 16)). > The totals are #(271 184 6 31). In the case of the first two numbers, I add > them up for each suit, multiply by ten and > divide by the total giving me a number from 0 to 40 that is similar to the > work point count commonly used to evaluate > bridge hands using 4, 3, 2, 1 for ace through jack for strength evaluation. > Now that I think about it I can simply > multiply each of the original numbers by 10 to eliminate that step. > > I know that's more than you what to know about the numbers but you asked. The > traditional 4, 3, 2, 1 evaluation > undervalues aces and kings. Different numbers are used for suit play and > notrump play because there is no chance that a > card will be trumped during play. A human would find it difficult to use this > method of evaluation but it is no problem > for a computer. By the way, I was just converting procedures I had written in > Forth and Ruby to Smalltalk. Now if I > could just learn not to think in sequential terms. Thank you! -- Yoshiki _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
