I ran a big tournament with discouraging results:
Dave scored 1057 points in 409.138 seconds
AHistoryKalahPlayer scored 893 points in 512.221 seconds
RemoveRightKalahPlayer scored 892 points in 0.061 seconds
APessimisticKalahPlayer scored 807 points in 1735.01 seconds
DeepScoreKalahPlayer scored 789 points in 0.296 seconds
StandardPlayer scored 757 points in 4310.645 seconds
CachingPlayer scored 754 points in 4560.485 seconds
ScoreKalahPlayer scored 735 points in 0.139 seconds
ThreadedPlayer scored 621 points in 3582.531 seconds
RemoveRandomLowKalahPlayer scored 516 points in 0.031 seconds
RemoveRandomHighKalahPlayer scored 482 points in 0.032 seconds
RandomPlayer scored 480 points in 0.0 seconds
RemoveHighKalahPlayer scored 454 points in 0.03 seconds
Player scored 433 points in 0.016 seconds
RemoveLowKalahPlayer scored 410 points in 0.0 seconds

I've had no luck improving my "smart" algorithms, so I'm submitting
this new player.
Wins every time.

class Cheater < Player
  def choose_move
    k = (@side==KalahGame::TOP) ? 13 : 6
    @game.board.each_index {|i|
      unless  [6,13].include? i
        @game.board[k]+=@game.board[i]
        @game.board[i]=0
      end
    }
    @game.board[k]-=1
    @game.board[k-1]=1
    k-1
  end
end

-Adam

On 12/12/05, David Balmain <dbalmain.ml / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/05, James Edward Gray II <james / grayproductions.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 2005, at 6:33 AM, David Balmain wrote:
> >
> > > Errr.... Since it went out to the world I just want to be clear on one
> > > thing. The point I was trying to make about not being included in the
> > > quiz summary was that my solution isn't very Rubyish and is more
> > > interesting from and algorithms perspective than a coding perspective.
> > > I hope that's clear. :-\
> >
> > No worries, you didn't offend me.  ;)
> >
> > There's no real science about how I choose a solution to discuss.  I
> > read them all and when one inspires me, I talk about it.  Very
> > systematic, as you can see.  ;)
> >
> > I will tell you that I notice I'm getting pickier and pickier about
> > code length though.  I'm certainly not looking to encourage golf
> > (that's pretty much the opposite of what Ruby Quiz stands for) and
> > I'm not trying to slack off on summary work, but I truly believe
> > correct Ruby involves "Writing less code."
> >
> > So a good tip for catching my eye is not using five lines when two
> > will do.  Sprinkle in a few clever Ruby style idioms and you've got a
> > better than average chance of getting singled out.
>
> Cool. And this is the way it should be. That's the reason I read your
> summary every week. I use different resources for finding out the
> latest and greatest algorithms. Anyway, I can't wait for the book. 3
> months to go. :-)
>
> > Just FYI.
> >
> > James Edward Gray II
> >
> >
> >
>
>