From: Jacques Du Pasquier (jacques@dtext.com)
Date: Tue Oct 01 2002 - 17:48:51 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote (30.9.2002/14:33) :
>
> --- spike66 <spike66@attbi.com> wrote:
> > Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> > > --- Mark Walker <mdwalker@quickclic.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>>Freecell hotshots, try number 20251.
> > >>>I eventually solved it but it took me
> > >>>several tries. spike
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>It's nastier than it looks. Took me several tries too.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Third try, 2 minutes, 12 seconds total time.
> >
> >
> > Youre better at it than I am then. I got 20251 on
> > the fourth try and it took me over 10 minutes.
>
> The key with this is that you need to be able to see far enough ahead
> of your play to be able to tell that you are in a hopeless position
> long before you've wasted too much time with that session, much like chess.
What I'd find interesting with this game is to see if it's possible to
internalize the tactics well enough so that I can look at all the
cards first (without computing anything), and have the moves
unconsciously computed in my mind. It sorts of works, but not quite.
When I was in highschool translating Latin, for example, I would do
the same: read the whole sentence with attention (not understanding
anything, and not even trying), and then its meaning would come all
parsed in my conscious mind without much conscious effort. (And much
faster than if I tried to solve it only through conscious analysis.)
I wonder how the limits of what you can "delegate" to your unconscious
mind could be made more precise. Sort of growing "sensory
modalities"-like abilities for higher-level problems.
It'd be interesting to compare the performance you get at freecell if
you try to solve it the normal way, and if you do that but after
having had a (passive) look first at all the cards. How much does it
help? How can you train so that it helps more? (Of course as a game it
may be more fun to just stick with conscious calculation.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:23 MST