3 ms·

I've been playing this for awhile now and I think I have found that the best method is to only use 3 directions. This forces your highest number into a corner a

I've been playing this for awhile now and I think I have found that the best method is to only use 3 directions. This forces your highest number into a corner and only spawns 2's and 4's in the opposite corner. You build up numbers that cascade down to the corner. It almost never gets stuck, but if you do I guess you'd have to push the 4th direction you haven't been using.

janezhu 13y ago
I got up to 16220 that way-- the thing you have to look out for though is as you build the cascading layers, when you get the row three, not to block yourself in (having all 3 rows full so that the only direction you can go, is the one you are avoiding). Try to keep your cascading layers down to 2, and keep about 2 steps ahead when you get to the 3rd layer. Many people have suggested keeping your highest number in the corner but I've found that doing so makes it easier to have 2's and 4's "invade" that fortress of high numbers you're building close to the wall. The best position is for the highest number to be 2nd or 3rd in the row closest to the wall cushioned by the second highest numbers on either side so that you can build up the numbers to either side of them, and eventually add them in. Example: X___X___X___X X___X___2___4 8___16__32__16 64__256_512_128
- izzydata 13y ago
  Thanks for the suggestion. I can't stop until I beat this eventually.
  - janezhu 13y ago
    Finally made it-- cascade gif: https://vine.co/v/Mbb07Wh0UPM/ https://vine.co/v/Mbb07Wh0UPM/
Patrick_Devine 13y ago
I was doing the same. I got up to 1024 before losing, so I wonder if the algorithm would be better if you changed it to do a minmax search on three directions, and always omit the fourth unless you're forced to move that way. That way your large values tend to be clump together and you don't get a small value buried which burns up a square.
saraid216 13y ago
I've been doing that, too, but my impression is that it's a human cognitive convenience, rather than something algorithmically stronger.
singold 13y ago
I've been using this strategy too, and (at least for me) it works pretty well. I get to 1042 pretty often. Also every time I move in the 4th direction I lose in few more moves (I did it at the begining to try this "theory", and it happened then too).
anrope 13y ago
I won with using basically this strategy. I was forced to use the other direction exactly once. http://i.imgur.com/4Ig74Q9.jpg http://i.imgur.com/4Ig74Q9.jpg
- pacaro 13y ago
  Likewise, I wouldn't say I only used the other direction only once, but I definitely keep the highest tile in the top right, and build up the top row, mostly moving up and right only
mturmon 13y ago
That's what I have been doing. It "feels" like a good strategy. But I couldn't tell if it was really just for my own cognitive convenience. That is, it's easier for me to reason about moves if I constrain moves to keep my high tiles against an edge. I watched the AI play once, and it of course does not constrain itself this way. To really rub it in, the AI won the game, which I have not.
avalaunch 13y ago
I won 4 times in a row using a variant of that strategy where I lined up biggest to smallest numbers in a snake like pattern across the bottom of the grid. I only used up if my largest number got moved from the corner and I only used left if my bottom row was completely filled or my choices were narrowed to up or left. EDIT: 5 times in a row now. I think I'm addicted. EDIT: lost on my attempt for 6 in a row. I had to press up right after the 1024 appeared and was scrambling the rest of the game. I managed to get the 512 and 2 256s to appear as well but couldn't get them together.
- sixothree 13y ago
  The problem with pressing up (in your case) is that some random 2 is likely to get stuck in the position you needed.
izzydata 13y ago
Finally won with 21180 points. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58437091/awwyis.PNG https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58437091/awwyis.PNG

janezhu 13y ago

I got up to 16220 that way-- the thing you have to look out for though is as you build the cascading layers, when you get the row three, not to block yourself in (having all 3 rows full so that the only direction you can go, is the one you are avoiding). Try to keep your cascading layers down to 2, and keep about 2 steps ahead when you get to the 3rd layer. Many people have suggested keeping your highest number in the corner but I've found that doing so makes it easier to have 2's and 4's "invade" that fortress of high numbers you're building close to the wall. The best position is for the highest number to be 2nd or 3rd in the row closest to the wall cushioned by the second highest numbers on either side so that you can build up the numbers to either side of them, and eventually add them in. Example: X___X___X___X X___X___2___4 8___16__32__16 64__256_512_128

izzydata 13y ago
Thanks for the suggestion. I can't stop until I beat this eventually.
- janezhu 13y ago
  Finally made it-- cascade gif: https://vine.co/v/Mbb07Wh0UPM/ https://vine.co/v/Mbb07Wh0UPM/

Patrick_Devine 13y ago

I was doing the same. I got up to 1024 before losing, so I wonder if the algorithm would be better if you changed it to do a minmax search on three directions, and always omit the fourth unless you're forced to move that way. That way your large values tend to be clump together and you don't get a small value buried which burns up a square.

saraid216 13y ago

I've been doing that, too, but my impression is that it's a human cognitive convenience, rather than something algorithmically stronger.

singold 13y ago

I've been using this strategy too, and (at least for me) it works pretty well. I get to 1042 pretty often. Also every time I move in the 4th direction I lose in few more moves (I did it at the begining to try this "theory", and it happened then too).

anrope 13y ago

I won with using basically this strategy. I was forced to use the other direction exactly once. http://i.imgur.com/4Ig74Q9.jpg http://i.imgur.com/4Ig74Q9.jpg

pacaro 13y ago
Likewise, I wouldn't say I only used the other direction only once, but I definitely keep the highest tile in the top right, and build up the top row, mostly moving up and right only

mturmon 13y ago

That's what I have been doing. It "feels" like a good strategy. But I couldn't tell if it was really just for my own cognitive convenience. That is, it's easier for me to reason about moves if I constrain moves to keep my high tiles against an edge. I watched the AI play once, and it of course does not constrain itself this way. To really rub it in, the AI won the game, which I have not.

avalaunch 13y ago

I won 4 times in a row using a variant of that strategy where I lined up biggest to smallest numbers in a snake like pattern across the bottom of the grid. I only used up if my largest number got moved from the corner and I only used left if my bottom row was completely filled or my choices were narrowed to up or left. EDIT: 5 times in a row now. I think I'm addicted. EDIT: lost on my attempt for 6 in a row. I had to press up right after the 1024 appeared and was scrambling the rest of the game. I managed to get the 512 and 2 256s to appear as well but couldn't get them together.

sixothree 13y ago
The problem with pressing up (in your case) is that some random 2 is likely to get stuck in the position you needed.

izzydata 13y ago

Finally won with 21180 points. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58437091/awwyis.PNG https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58437091/awwyis.PNG