Who is the Freecell Champion ?

Are you better than me ?



Win Streak…56
Lost Streak…5


Nope. Win streak at 40 and loss at 6. Only 73% winning, but I very often just close a game when I idly open it and realize I should be doing something else.

Do you mean Freecell Solitaire?

I’ve been doing them for years and only had 2 or 3 I couldn’t solve.
I restart alot though.

Well, there are 2 or 3 which nobody can solve.

Oh, there’s alot more than 2 or 3 that can’t be solved, I just haven’t come across them yet.
My unofficial record would be something like 5000 wins to 3 losses or 99.994% over 5 years. I never really kept track of the stats.

One thing I’ve noticed on Vista is that it will let you undo all the way back to the beginning. I don’t think the XP version would let you do that. So my percentage is much better on my newer laptop (99%) than it is on my old desktop (probably somewhere around 75%) because I can essentially restart if I get stuck without getting dinged for it.

Yep, same here!

I don’t play as often anymore. On my current computer, I have 89 wins, 0 losses.

Anyone play Double Freecell? I just got a Nintendo DS game called Solitaire Overload which has that game (Freecell with two decks) and I’ve been playing it while recovering from my wisdom tooth extraction. It is so hard! Granted, I’ve been a little loopy from my pain meds, but I’ve played over 100 times and haven’t won yet. According to the program, the chance of winning is 4% (30% for regular Freecell).

Of the standard 64k games in the Windows distribution (which is what almost everyone plays), there is exactly one unbeatable deal, and I think that mathematically, that’s actually more than you’d expect in that many deals. So for a sufficiently good player, the chance of winning is well over 99.99%.

Streak 57, 87% wins, can only undo last move.

Oh you mean game " -1 " and game " -2 " .
To everyone else here who is about to go out and attempt those games:

you’re welcome!

Only one? That’s interesting…where did you get this info? Cite?
Although, logically, it doesn’t make sense since any unsolvable deal would at least be multiplied by four, substituting the configuration with the different suits.

Apparently there are 8 unsolvable deals…

Multiplied by 24, actually, since there are 24 possible permutations of four suits. There are many more than one or four or 24 unsolvable deals possible in principle, but most of them don’t come up in the limited set supported by the computer game. It used to be that the game only supported 65,535 different deals, but apparently (judging from that cite) they’ve expanded that now. It looks like they probably have 1048575 different deals now, but that’s still far, far short of the 52! (approximately 8*10[sup]67[/sup]) different valid deals that exist.

Not necessarily; swapping a red and a black suit may make an unsolvable game solvable.

Ah, right, it almost certainly would. But you could still swap both of the black suits with both of the red suits without change to the gameplay, so it’d be a factor of 8.

It’s been a long time since I studied calculus and I understand the massive number of permutations but I completely overlooked the fact that there is a limited set of deals available… Now it makes sense, they obviously can’t have a game number with 68 digits. Thanks.

Now, if they did away with numbering of games could they write an algorithm that could generate all the different valid deals?

Eventually? Sure. But the most straightforward way of doing it would give you very similar deals one after another, which would probably get monotonous, and there’s no real benefit to it. No real human being is ever going to actually go through a million games, nor recognize that a game is identical to one played already. Plus there’s a benefit to having game numbers: You can ask a friend “Hey, can you beat game number 734295”, or whatever.

You miss my point, I understand why there's numbered games, I was more interested in whether there is an algorithm that would truly randomly generate every permutation by shuffling the deck and dealing the cards as one would play with a real deck. I remember trying to develop one in Digital Logic 101 at university and it proved a difficult task.