Originally posted by AThousandYoung
That would work but only until you have to go back over territory you've already covered. Then it becomes inefficient because you'll be hitting squares horizontally or vertically adjacent to other squares.
I like the checkerboard pattern. I don't think it matters what order you choose the squares as long as you stick to the checkerboard.
i agree with you, if it's stipulated that each square is equally likely to contain a ship as any other square. i think game theorists and psychologists alike might disagree that this is true though 🙂
i think you don't lose any of the checkerboard pattern's benefits by starting as spread out WITHIN that checkerboard as possible, until it becomes necessary to fill in the gaps (like, if A1 C3 and B4 are tried and missed, almost any other square in the checkerboard is more likely than B2, since the battleship and carrier could not vertically go through that square). of course if you haven't hit the destroyer in this "spread out" checkerboard, then you will have to start going into the 2x2 checkerboard pattern. but doing the spread out one first and then trying the "in between" squares doesn't lose any time relative to the more ordered "top down" method (A1 C1 E1 G1 I1, B2 D2 F2 ...)
so i think order does matter, but don't know what would be optimal yet - these are all just suggestions
Originally posted by smomofo Last time I played, I placed the 5 space long aircraft carrier on an angle so that it went diagonal (4 holes sideways and 3 holes vertical). I won. My sister freaked! We haven't played since. Good old Pythagorus.
hilarious. i didn't know the pegs on the carrier would fit the squares (C5-E3 for example) 🙂 maybe you used a little bending? hehehe
Originally posted by deriver69 A lot depends on how long the longest ship is. To find every ship may require in its worse case every other square to be marked off. Each targetted square must therefore be part of a checkerboard pattern. I would still start off by spacing these further out then close in though hoping to get that 2 square one luckily.
Originally posted by strokem1 I don't know if my strategy is optimal but I like to start near a corner and start playing Knight moves each time... 😛 It seems to do a decent job
With this method you could seem to be winning but its inefficient at finding the small ship and hence a losing strategy.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 8% is an approximation.
I'm assuming 10x10 board as discussed earlier.
1 shots at a 2 square target is 25 (2/100)
2 shots at a 2 sq target will be slightly better than 4% (2/100 + 2/99)
Et cetera ...
Four shots as I suggest will give about an 8% chance of hittinbg the little bugger.
IF you hit it you can use the system for looking for 3 ...[text shortened]... and save lots of shots.
IF you dont hit it you use the checkerboard system and no harm done.
But, you don't know that you've hit it until you've sunk it and had at least 2 missing shots because you thought it was 3, but it was only 2, (one miss in front, one miss in back).
Originally posted by brobluto But, you don't know that you've hit it until you've sunk it and had at least 2 missing shots because you thought it was 3, but it was only 2, (one miss in front, one miss in back).
Why have I had two missing shots?
Once I get a hit I, say on E5, I simply try all around D5, E4 etc until I hit it. If it turns out to be a 2sq ship I'm happy as Larry and dont have to pursue the checkerboard tactic as I'm now looking for a minimum size of 3 sqs
i think it should be stipulated in this small piece of the argument that the opposing player says "you sunk my _____" (as is customary) when a ship is destroyed. so you don't miss two extra shots, necessarily. you could miss up to three shots after a hit, from choosing the wrong directions, but these are not factored into misses from the "checkerboard search algorithm"
The question that has to be cleared up is, does the opponent say, "You've hit my _____" prior to saying "you sunk my ____". Or do they just say "hit"?
If it's the latter (which what I assumed in my proposal), you must continue in the checkerboard fashion to determine that it is NOT a 3,4, or 5 hit ship, which the odds are in favor it is. If the checkerboard around the hit are all misses, then go for the kill of the Destroyer and then proceed with the 3 space proposal once the kill is confirmed and so on.
If the former, then you will know when you hit the Destroyer using the checkerboard and you can search for the other hit immediately, and once killed, can proceed with the 3 space method.
Originally posted by brobluto The question that has to be cleared up is, does the opponent say, "You've hit my _____" prior to saying "you sunk my ____". Or do they just say "hit"?
If it's the latter (which what I assumed in my proposal), you must continue in the checkerboard fashion to determine that it is NOT a 3,4, or 5 hit ship, which the odds are in favor it is. If the checkerb ...[text shortened]... rch for the other hit immediately, and once killed, can proceed with the 3 space method.
Good point.
Every game I've played the opponent says "destroyed" when appropriate.
I still think you should start spread out, always in a checkerboard pattern. Then you close in. You should be aiming for the biggest ship hoping you get a smaller one by luck. However if you play a lot you mustn't be predictable so you may have to vary your tactics a bit.( there again if you get predictable you are probably playing it too much).
Battleship
18 Apr '08 06:28
Back to Top