From: thunk Date: 2010-03-30T07:30:05+09:00 Subject: Re: Boid writeup idea Guys, Never thought about playing games with this, but yes, depending on the helper class design this thing, as far as I can see, could play tic tac toe against 100's of very quick kids at one time. Or checkers. I did those in the 70's. It could also play just about all the games at the same time, and without the change of a single line of code except the helper_classes it could be taught new games. The output on the other-side of the "reader" would also have to be modified to inform humans of its decision. Chess I don't feel qualified to answer. However, given that the helper library could be using historical moves, or some sort of internal score on all allowed moves to some depth I can't see why not. And it might be of note that the rules could be contributed from folks on the web. That's rather the part that trips my trigger. I woke up thinking about "inside-out programming". There's top-down and bottom up (?) - why not "inside out" - maybe that is the term :) that is escaping me/us (as I can't think of a posting saying what these things should be called). It's "inside out" because the guts of the decisions that would be nested into 3-4-5 levels of c has been put at the top. Going with the "guts" - visualize your stomach being replaced with 1000 tubes that go into and out of your body? No, on second thought, don't. Figuring chess match time, it would be interesting to figure out at 2,000 "fully fired" mini-plug-lets per second what kind of depth could be achieved on all he average number of available moves. Ruby just has to be too slow to compete with Deep Blue style code? Not of my interest to me except to do head to head against something specialized. I was thinking about "Minimal Program Units" - for "Boid". It was the "Swarm"concept that seems to fit so well, that has helped me think about this, that attracted me to that term in the first place.