View Single Post
Old 12-24-2006, 11:01 AM   #13 (permalink)
KnifeMissile
 
KnifeMissile's Avatar
 
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by twilight
Hi together,

well, you may improve the algorythem further and solve such puzzeles with up to 64x64 (or 128x128 if your comp supports a 128 bit unit , like AltiVec, etc.) field size in a few minutes.
Your one-field approach was a good idea but why not checking against a whole line? Beginning with the last line and as few shapes as possible...
To do this FAST you need to convert the field and the shapes into liniar binary data.
Your field (from the picture) will become: 100110101 - where 1 needs a odd number of convertions and 0 and even number (or null).
Pos 1 is left like: pos 1 was x=0,y=0, pos 2 was x=1,y=0, etc.
Now the shapes:
Shape 1: 11010
Shape 2: 01011
Shape 3: 01011001 and so on...
You need to fill in Zeros up to the X field size. E.g. shape 1 has a width of 2, the field X size is 3, so you need to add 1 Zero to each line, except the last line. You still need to keep possible positions for each shape but this time you need it as offset for the field data - just a single byte per pos.
Now you can simply use bit operators to check against the field and other shapes by using XOR and positioning the sahpes by shifting the bits.

To keep things simple, starting checking against the last line, solve it and move up line by line. In your example the last line is only 3 bits: 101
As you can see field 1 and 3 of the line needs to be transformed, now find the right shapes - try with as few as possible...
If you have a puzzle with 3 or more items, convert them the same way and check for a correct tranformation only if a solution matches the bit field...

This way you can compare around 20 mil. positions of 20 shapes per second as long as the field width is less than 64 blocks (or 128).

Another improvement would be to find shape combinations that wipe out each other to reduce the number of shapes...but you may end up with no solution this way...However, it worked for me for most tests.

Hope that's fast enough

Cheers,
Twilight
Wow, someone read this thread after all this time!

Unfortunately, it isn't fast enough... It may sound like a good optimisation but the reality is that these small implementation "tweaks" only improve the runtime by a constant amount. I don't need the program to be twice or four times as fast... Making the program 10,000 times faster may not be fast enough.

The problem is that the puzzle grows remarkably fast! The picture in the first post is only the very first level of complexity. The posted algorithm can handle up to 7x8 boards with 18 shapes within a reasonable time (sometimes a couple of hours!). No doubt, the puzzle gets even bigger...

So, if you have any suggestions for a faster algorithm rather than implementations of faster routines, I'm keen to hear them!
Thanks...
KnifeMissile is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360