6 ms·
I'm running some trials here and keeping track of the results with this AI. I'll edit this when I have the data to provide the information. Something that occu
by seventytwo 13y ago
I'm running some trials here and keeping track of the results with this AI. I'll edit this when I have the data to provide the information.
Something that occurred to me is that "score" and "winning" can have different optimizations. Score is based upon combining blocks, where as winning is based upon reaching the 2048 block. This means the game can be optimzed in two different ways: 1) To maximize score, wherein your goal is to delay reaching 2048 until the last possible moment to allow yourself time to rack up score, and 2) to reach 2048 in the optimal number of moves, which means a lower score.
You're scored on what you combine in a move. So, if you combine two "4" tiles to yield and "8" tile, you'll get 8 points, and so on. To maximize score, the idea would be to basically waste space on the board building up tiles you don't need, while avoiding getting to 2048. In theory, one could build up many 1024 tiles, and maybe even combine several at once to yield multiple 2048 tiles.
To minimize moves in order to reach the fastest would basically be a game of golf. You'd need to reach 2048, but the lowest score in doing so would, by default, mean you've completed the game more efficiently. There's probably some absolute minimum score, but I'm too lazy to figure that out right now...
- pzs 13y agoIf you have only a single 2048 tile in the end, and arrived to that by only combining the minimum number of required tiles, then your score will be 10*2048. If you think backwards, you'll get 2048 for the last tile, before that you need to get twice 1024 for the previous two, and so on until the level of 4's, which is the first one at which you get scores. This assumes only twos appear on the board.
- seventytwo 13y agoInitially, I had arrived at this conclusion as well, but I've seen solutions (both from other people posting and from running this script) that have gotten to 2048 with 14000 or less. I'm not entirely sure where the discrepancy is coming from, though... Obviously with a certain number of "4"s being generated each turn, the 10x2048 value will be reduced, but not to the degree we see. For example, I have logged a win with a score of 13404 points, and other people in here have screenshots of wins with significantly less than 20480 pts. Intuitively, I want to say that the optimal score is more like 10x2048/2, but I haven't been able to prove that yet (at least not in between work today :) )
- ljf 13y agoIt seems there is a bug where only the higher or two cascades trigger at once, will be scored. So some of the points seem to being lost.
- seventytwo 13y agoLooks like I can't edit this anymore, but here are the results of a few trials. http://i.imgur.com/4rqdhQQ.jpg http://i.imgur.com/4rqdhQQ.jpg 3/10 games were won. Of these three, the lowest score was 12268, with only 8, 4, and 2 tiles left on the board (aside from the 2048 tile, obviously). The highest score of all was also the first game to be won with a score of 13404. This was also the least "efficient" game to be won, with 10 other tiles left on the board aside from 2048.