ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Actually, this would be much faster :P
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | |X| | |
| | |X|O|O|O|O|
| | |X|O|O|O|O|
| | |O|X|O|X| |
| |X|O|X|X|X|O|
No.... remember i said
if X decided to stall for as long as possible.
If X stalls by doing this:
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | |X| |X| | |
| | |X|O|O| | |
| | |X|O|O|O| |
| | |O|X|O|X| |
| |X|O|X|X|X|O|
Then the sequence i gave is the fastest, (and only) method to win.
You're assuming X does something random, for which your method is still by no way the fastest.
This would be much faster.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | |O|X| | |
| | |X|O|O| | |
| | |X|O|O|O|O|
| | |O|X|O|X|O|
| |X|O|X|X|X|O|
And if u assume X does something stupid, then it's instant win.
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | |X| | |
| | |X|O|O| | |
| | |X|O|O|O|O|
| | |O|X|O|X|X|
| |X|O|X|X|X|O|