wchargin
Joined 12 years ago
Joined 12 years ago
CREATE TABLE states (
state order_state PRIMARY KEY,
depth int NOT NULL,
UNIQUE(state, depth)
);
CREATE TABLE transitions (
start_state order_state NOT NULL,
event order_event NOT NULL,
end_state order_state NOT NULL,
start_depth int NOT NULL,
end_depth int NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT transitions_start_depth_correct
FOREIGN KEY(start_state, start_depth) REFERENCES states(state, depth)
ON UPDATE CASCADE,
CONSTRAINT transitions_end_depth_correct
FOREIGN KEY(end_state, end_depth) REFERENCES states(state, depth)
ON UPDATE CASCADE,
CONSTRAINT transitions_depth_increases CHECK(end_depth > start_depth),
PRIMARY KEY(start_state, event)
);
Let's bang on it for a quick test. You can define a state machine; here's one that roughly matches the regex `^(AB|BA)$` (I know I'm being a bit sloppy): fsm=> CREATE DOMAIN order_state AS text;
CREATE DOMAIN
fsm=> CREATE DOMAIN order_event AS text;
CREATE DOMAIN
fsm=> -- "CREATE TABLE"s as above, then:
fsm=> INSERT INTO states(state, depth) VALUES('start', 1), ('a', 2), ('b', 2), ('done', 3), ('error', 3);
INSERT 0 5
fsm=> INSERT INTO transitions(start_state, event, end_state, start_depth, end_depth) VALUES('start', 'A', 'a', 1, 2), ('start', 'B', 'b', 1, 2), ('a', 'B', 'done', 2, 3), ('b', 'A', 'done', 2, 3), ('a', 'A', 'error', 2, 3), ('b', 'B', 'error', 2, 3);
INSERT 0 6
And, as you need to modify it, you can increase a node's depth to make room for intervening nodes: fsm=> UPDATE states SET depth = 4 WHERE state = 'error';
UPDATE 1
fsm=> TABLE transitions;
start_state | event | end_state | start_depth | end_depth
-------------+-------+-----------+-------------+-----------
start | A | a | 1 | 2
start | B | b | 1 | 2
a | B | done | 2 | 3
b | A | done | 2 | 3
a | A | error | 2 | 4
b | B | error | 2 | 4
(6 rows)
But you can't decrease a node's depth too far: fsm=> UPDATE states SET depth = 2 WHERE state = 'error';
ERROR: new row for relation "transitions" violates check constraint "transitions_depth_increases"
DETAIL: Failing row contains (a, A, error, 2, 2).
CONTEXT: SQL statement "UPDATE ONLY "public"."transitions" SET "end_state" = $1, "end_depth" = $2 WHERE $3::pg_catalog.text OPERATOR(pg_catalog.=) "end_state"::pg_catalog.text AND $4 OPERATOR(pg_catalog.=) "end_depth""
And you can't introduce transitions that don't increase depth: fsm=> INSERT INTO transitions(start_state, event, end_state, start_depth, end_depth) VALUES('done', 'AGAIN!', 'start', 3, 1);
ERROR: new row for relation "transitions" violates check constraint "transitions_depth_increases"
DETAIL: Failing row contains (done, AGAIN!, start, 3, 1).
Now, I don't know that I would immediately recommend this for high-throughput production use. You're storing "unnecessary" state not once but many times (each state's depth appears `1 + \deg(v)` times), plus additional indices and lookups. But I do think it meets the desired consistency goals!I haven't optimized my approach at all or even run it under a profiler, but it uses SIMD-within-a-register for computing the "flood fill" of which squares a piece can move to, which is a nice efficiency boost. For the simplest example, if you have a bit-vector `v: u64` of positions that a pawn might be in, then `v << 8` is the vector that denotes where it might be after one step, and `((v & can_move::LEFT) << 7) | ((v & can_move::RIGHT) << 9)` denotes what it might be able to capture.
I think the `Stepper` implementations and the way they flow into the top-level `captures` function is a cool and powerful approach; I encourage taking a look if it sounds interesting to you.
[1]: https://github.com/wchargin/echo-chess
Direct link to source:
https://github.com/wchargin/echo-chess/blob/main/src/main.rs
I used the “hard copy” rule set as used in the printed New York Times, which is slightly different from the web rule set: words must be at least five letters long, not four, and are worth 1 point each, or 3 for a pangram. The hard copy puzzles also include three score thresholds, so I had a bit of fun trying to reverse-engineer how those thresholds are chosen. I didn’t get exactly the right function, but I got fairly close, and most importantly the thresholds feel fair when playing. (The online version also has score thresholds, but there are many more of them, and it was easy for me to transcribe thresholds from the archives of the printed copies.)
In my admittedly biased yet assuredly humble opinion, both the algorithm performance and the rating threshold estimation are interesting: https://github.com/wchargin/spelling-bee/tree/master#perform...
Oh, and a web-based solver, for convenience: https://wchargin.github.io/spelling-bee/
Lovely to see how the author of this article and I both had a lot of fun with this by taking it in different directions. :-)