I am wirting chess Ai as a project. if positon repetes 3 times it is a draw I can create array with all previus position then get every updated position iterete over every previus one of them and see if we have 2 same position in array. but this seem like a lot of work for computer and it will make calculating moves for Ai hard. is there any better way to do this?
I would suggest using Zobrist Hashing, which is designed to handle this kind of situation. Simply store a list of hash values for each position as you go along. You could also use a Bloom Filter.
It does not matter so much if you get some false positives if you keep track of the actual board configurations as well, so if you do get a collision, you can then quickly check if you have come across the current position before; this should not happen very often if you use sufficiently large hash values.
As Oliver mentioned in his answer you should use something like Zobrist Hashing, each position then have an (almost) unique number. Zobrist Hashing is hard to implement so you need to make sure your implementation is bug free, which is easier said than done. You then store this value in a list or similar that you loop over backwards to find how many time the same position has occured.
To make the lookup faster you only need to loop each other step since you are checking for a specific colors turn. You can also break the loop immediately if you find a pawn move or a capture since these moves make the position impossible to be repeated again.
You can look at Chessprogrmaming - Repetitions for more inspiration, especially the header "List of Keys".
Specifically I'm getting a result that I do not understand. It is possible that my understanding is simply wrong, but I don't think so. So I'm hoping that someone will either say "yes, that's a known problem" or "no, it is working correct and here is why your understanding is wrong".
Here is my example.
To start I have the following geometry of lat/longs.
LINESTRING(-1.32007599 51.06707497,-1.31192207 51.09430508,-1.30926132 51.10206677,-1.30376816 51.11133597,-1.29261017 51.12981493,-1.27510071 51.15906713,-1.27057314 51.16440941,-1.26606703 51.16897072,-1.26235485 51.17439257,-1.26089573 51.17875111,-1.26044512 51.1833917,-1.25793457 51.19727033,-1.25669003 51.20141159,-1.25347137 51.20630532,-1.24845028 51.21110444,-1.23325825 51.22457158,-1.2274003 51.22821321,-1.22038364 51.23103494,-1.20326042 51.23596583,-1.1776185 51.24346193,-1.16356373 51.24968088,-1.13167763 51.26363353,-1.12247229 51.2659966,-1.11629248 51.26682901,-1.10906124 51.26728549,-1.09052181 51.26823871,-1.08522177 51.26885628,-1.07013702 51.27070895,-1.03683472 51.27350122,-1.00917578 51.27572955,-0.98243952 51.2779175,-0.9509182 51.28095094,-0.9267354 51.28305811,-0.90499878 51.28511151,-0.86051702 51.2883055,-0.83661318 51.29023789,-0.7534647 51.29708113,-0.74908733 51.29795323,-0.7400322 51.2988924,-0.71535587 51.30125366,-0.68475723 51.29863749,-0.65746307 51.30220618,-0.63246489 51.30380261,-0.60542822 51.30645873,-0.58150291 51.3103219,-0.57603121 51.31150225,-0.57062387 51.31317883,-0.54195642 51.32475227,-0.4855442 51.34771616,-0.4553318 51.36283147)
This is in a column called "geom" in my table, called "fibre_lines". When I run the following query,
select st_length(geography(geom), false) as full_length,
st_length(geography(st_line_substring(geom, 0, 1)), false) as full_length_2,
st_length(geography(st_line_substring(geom, 0, 0.5)), false) as first_half,
st_length(geography(st_line_substring(geom, 0.5, 1)), false) as second_half
from fibre_lines
where id = 10;
I get the following result...
76399.4939375278 76399.4939375278 41008.9667229201 35390.5272197668
The first two make sense to me, they are simply the length of my line assuming a spherical earth. The first is just using the obvious function while the second is using st_line_substring to get the length of the entire line. These two values agree.
But the last two have me puzzled. I am asking for the length of the first half of the line, then I'm asking for the length of the last half. My expectation was that these would be equal or nearly equal. Instead the first half is about 6km longer than the second half.
If you plot the geometry on the map you will see that the first third of the line is fairly north/south oriented and the remaining two thirds are more east/west. I wouldn't have thought that would make a difference when asking for the length on a spherical earth, but I am happy to be told that I'm wrong (so long as it is also explained why I'm wrong).
For reference the PostGIS I am using is 1.5.8. If this is a bug, upgrading to a newer version is possible, but not trivial, so I would prefer to only do that if it is necessary.
Anyone have ideas?
While Arunas' comments didn't directly answer my question, it did lead me to some research that I think identifies the problem. I'm posting it here in part to get it straight in my own mind and in part in case others are wondering.
It seems the key is the PostGIS distinction between a "geometry" and a "geography". A geometry is a 2D planar geometry that is typically in UTMs and used with a projection of the globe onto a flat surface (which projection is configurable). A geography, on the other hand, is designed to store latitude/longitude information specifically and is used to work either on a sphere or a spheroid. So the essential problem I have is twofold:
Perhaps not obvious from my original post is that I am using a geometry object to store lat/long information rather than UTMs. I cast that to a geography most of the time so that I get the correct answers, but it would be more correct if I actually stored it as a geography object. That would eliminate the need for a number of the casts in my code as well as allow PostGIS to tell me when I am doing something wrong.
While ST_Length will work with either a geometry or a geography, ST_Line_Substring only works with geometries. Hence when I ask it for the halfway point, I am asking it for the halfway point of a flat geometry. This will give me the correct answer for the latitude coordinate, but for the longitude it will have an error term that increases (for most projections) the farther I am from the equator.
I've looked into newer versions of PostGIS and they don't seem to have an ST_Line_Substring or anything similar that will give me the 50% point of a geography, so I will have to do it the "hard" way by using ST_Length to give me all my segment lengths and then adding them up and doing the math needed for my interpolation.
Sorry I can't add comments so will provide it as an answer.
I experienced the same problem and I resolved by transforming my lat-lon geometries to utm geometries into st_line_substring function call. The I as getting sub-geometries with proper length. Of course I had to transform them back to lat-lon afterward.
I am building a system for a client that employs a 3x3 forced matrix. Among the many challenges I have encountered along the way, one has stood out the most and I have yet to solve it. My task is to get the first available (empty) position under a given point (it must move from left to right and downward). My best attempt at this was to get the entire downline of a given point, then, cycle through each of them until I found one with < 3 child nodes. The problem with this attempt is that the first query does not give the downline in order from left to right and top to bottom.
Please feel free to share any insight on this, all answers and comments are welcome. Forgive me if I made this far more confusing than it needed to be.
I've been thinking for a few days about the best solution for this but can't seem to get the right idea on how to do this.
I have a pieces (objects) and I want to fit them in the smallest possible space.
What I'm ultimately looking for is something like this
http://i.stack.imgur.com/Yg09E.gif
But a simpler version of just calculating the best possible fit of two lines(stripes) would already do for now
like the lines(stripes) on the right
http://i.stack.imgur.com/HijMo.jpg
What I have is 2 arrays of points(vertices) on a xy axis representing two lines(stripes) and I'd like to arrange them in such a manner that there is 10 or 20 mm space between the closest point of the two.
I was thinking of looking at the first half of the array and finding the highest point then looking at the second half and finding it's highest point then compare the two
but that doesn't really seem to be a proper solution.
And I can't really imagine writing a program that fits shapes as in the first image is even possible using such methods.
Can anyone guide me in the right direction?
Well, this is really possible.
All you would Have to do is build area and distance function. You might need to add different algorithms for different kinds of shapes.
For the Ones you have provided in the first picture, it is difficult to calculate area. So, Probably will have to specify distance of vertices. Also, you need to add a condition to make sure that the locus of the shapes does not co-incide at any point.
The idea is to move all of the right elements into the left and the left into the right with an empty space in the middle. The elements can either jump over one or two pieces into an empty space.
LLL[ ]RRR
I'm trying to think of a heuristic for this task. Is the heuristic meant to aid in finding a possible solution, or actually return a number of moves as the solution? How would I express such a heuristic?
Sounds like you are a bit confused about what a heuristic is.
A rough definition is "a simplifying assumption" or "a decent guess"
For example, let's say you have to put together a basketball team, and you have fact sheets on people who want to play that list their contact info, birth date, and height. You could hold tryouts where you test each candidate's specific skills; that would require bringing in all the candidates, though, and that could take a long time. You use a heuristic to narrow the search -- only call people who are at least 6'2" tall. This might ignore some great basketball players, but it's a pretty decent guess.
Another example of a heuristic: you are trying to use the smallest number of coins to pay a bill. The heuristic (a simplifying approach) is to pick the coin with the biggest value (which is less than the remaining bill) first, subtract the value from the bill, and repeat. This is not guaranteed to work every time, but it'll get you to the right neighborhood most of the time.
A heuristic for your problem might be "never move Ls to the right, and never move Rs to the left" -- it narrows the "search space" of all possible moves by eliminating some of the possibilities from the outset.
Are you looking for a heuristic or an algorithm? A heuristic may or may not solve a given problem. It is really just intended to point you in the direction that the solution probably lies in. An algorithm really should solve a given problem.
A heuristic is generally a "hint" which usually (but not always) will guide your procedure to the correct direction. Using heuristics speeds up your procedures (your algorithms), again, usually, but not always. It's like an "advice" to the algorithm which is correct more often than not.
I'm not sure what you are looking for, as the description is a little vague. If you want the algorithm, you will need to study what effect a particular move will have to the current situation and a way to step forward for all possible moves each time, in effect traversing a tree of states (ie. states that will evolve if you make a particular sequence of moves).
You can also see that it possibly matters how close the current position is to what you want to achieve (your desired final position).So instead of calculating all the possible paths from your initial state until you find the final state, you can guide your algorithm based on the heuristic "how close is the current state to the desired one" and only traverse a part of the tree.