P seq.i QB+QS*7,QB+QS*7+QD jmp slow, 0 seq.i QB+QS*6,QB+QS*6+QD jmp slow,

P seq.i QB+QS*11,QB+QS*11+QD jmp slow, {P seq.i QB+QS*15,QB+QS*15+QD jmp slow, }P seq.i QB+QS*10,QB+QS*10+QD djn.f slow, P seq.i QB+QS*5,QB+QS*5+QD jmp >fast, 0 seq.i QB+QS*9,QB+QS*9+QD jmp >fast, {P seq.i QB+QS*13,QB+QS*13+QD jmp >fast, }P seq.i QB+QS*14,QB+QS*14+QD jmp P, 0 seq.i QB+QS*8,QB+QS*8+QD jmp P,

3 processes for the stone cSp2 spl #0, #0 ;---> extra boost for the stone cSp spl #0, <-1151+3 mov 197, cAd-(197*3500) cAd add.ab {0, }0 djn.f -2, <-1151 cBomb dat >-1, >1 for 19-2 dat 0, 0 rof pump spl #1, >prime prime mov.i imp, impoff-4 add.f #impsize+1, ptr ptr jmp pump+impoff-(impsize+1), >-200 imp mov.i #impsize, *0 Using exactly the same method I created Digital Dragon (everybody will see the similarity to The Stormbringer ;-) with a d-clear. But instead of the 3pt imps I used here 13pt imp. I've used this because it gave the best results on the hill. Though it isn't as lethal as Digitalis 4, it loses much less against q^2 -> papers due to it's smaller size and faster launching. ;redcode-94 ;name Digital Dragon ;author Christian Schmidt ;strategy q^2 -> d-clear + 13pt imps ;assert 1 org start QS EQU (0-200) QD EQU 100 QB EQU (start-350) CR EQU (fnd-which) datz EQU (table-3) GAP equ 8 REP equ 15 impoff equ 627+200 impsize equ 5091 bptr1 equ 1800 qinc dat >(-1)*GAP*2, >GAP dat 9*QS, 1*QS table: dat 5*QS, 2*QS dat 13*QS, 17*QS P: add.f table,table slow: add.ab *P,fnd fast: add.b @P,@-1 which: sne.i datz,@fnd add.ab #QD,fnd add.ba fnd, fnd qbo mov.i qinc, @fnd mov.i qinc, *fnd fnd mov.i (-1)*(GAP/2),@QB sub.x qinc, fnd djn.b qbo, #REP jmp boot, }-300 start: seq.i QB+QS*0,QB+QS*0+QD jmp which, 0 ; 0 seq.i QB+QS*2,QB+QS*2+QD jmp fast, 0 ; E seq.i QB+QS*1,QB+QS*1+QD jmp fast,

P ; F seq.i QB+QS*7,QB+QS*7+QD jmp slow, 0 ; BE seq.i QB+QS*6,QB+QS*6+QD jmp slow,

P ; BF seq.i QB+QS*11,QB+QS*11+QD jmp slow, {P ; AE seq.i QB+QS*15,QB+QS*15+QD jmp slow, }P ; CE seq.i QB+QS*10,QB+QS*10+QD djn.f slow, P ; AD seq.i QB+QS*5,QB+QS*5+QD jmp >fast, 0 ; B seq.i QB+QS*9,QB+QS*9+QD jmp >fast, {P ; A seq.i QB+QS*13,QB+QS*13+QD jmp >fast, }P ; C seq.i QB+QS*14,QB+QS*14+QD jmp P, 0 ; BBEE seq.i QB+QS*8,QB+QS*8+QD jmp P,

6 processes for the d-clear ptr dat 0, 2150 clrb dat >2667, 25 clear spl #0, >ptr-16 loop mov clrb-16, >ptr-16 cc djn.f loop, >ptr-16 bptr3 dat cc+1, boot2+bptr1+19 for 19-2 dat 0, 0 rof pump spl #1, >prime prime mov.i imp, impoff-4 add.f #impsize+1, iptr iptr jmp pump+impoff-(impsize+1), >-200 imp mov.i #impsize, *0 Finally, with this method it is now also possible to combine a stone with a paper, in such a way, the stone dominates in the beginning until the paper becomes dominant. The first task is to find a 'pocket' for the stone, where it survives the paper until close to the end of the battle. To do this, run the paper alone and seach core to find the location of pockets of initial core. Now you must check in which of the pocket the stone will gain the most points, and what ratio of processes the stone needs. I found that the easiest way is to launch the stone is with the paper launcher. For Shadow I've used Paul Kline's RetinA, which gave by far the best results. Shape used for example my paper from Head or Tail. ;redcode-94 ;name Shadow ;author Christian Schmidt ;strategy q^2 -> stone/paper ;strategy v3 modified stone, now faster ;strategy v3.1 better pocket for the stone ;assert 1 org start QS equ (0-200) QD equ 100 QB equ (start-350) CR equ (fnd-which) datz equ (table-3) GAP equ 8 REP equ 15 cBptr equ (1724-66);973 spcsz equ 2381;2382 impsz equ (127*37) ;2794 qinc dat >(-1)*GAP*2, >GAP dat 9*QS, 1*QS table: dat 5*QS, 2*QS dat 13*QS, 17*QS P: add.f table, table slow: add.ab *P, fnd fast: add.b @P, @-1 which: sne.i datz, @fnd add.ab #QD, fnd add.ba fnd, fnd qbo mov.i qinc, @fnd mov.i qinc, *fnd fnd mov.i (-1)*(GAP/2),@QB sub.x qinc, fnd djn.b qbo, #REP jmp cBoot, }-300 start: seq.i QB+QS*0,QB+QS*0+QD jmp which, 0 seq.i QB+QS*2,QB+QS*2+QD jmp fast, 0 seq.i QB+QS*1,QB+QS*1+QD jmp fast,

P seq.i QB+QS*7,QB+QS*7+QD jmp slow, 0 seq.i QB+QS*6,QB+QS*6+QD jmp slow,

P seq.i QB+QS*11,QB+QS*11+QD jmp slow, {P seq.i QB+QS*15,QB+QS*15+QD jmp slow, }P seq.i QB+QS*10,QB+QS*10+QD djn.f slow, P seq.i QB+QS*5,QB+QS*5+QD jmp >fast, 0 seq.i QB+QS*9,QB+QS*9+QD jmp >fast, {P seq.i QB+QS*13,QB+QS*13+QD jmp >fast, }P seq.i QB+QS*14,QB+QS*14+QD jmp P, 0 seq.i QB+QS*8,QB+QS*8+QD jmp P,

1 process for the stone
cSp2 spl #0, #0
cSp spl #0, <-1151+3
mov 197, cAd-(197*3500)
cAd add.ab {0, }0
djn.f -2, <-1151
cBomb dat >-1, >1
rStart spl 2, <400
spl 1, <400
spl 1, <400
cStart spl rCell1+cBptr-1, <402 ;---> 6 processes for the stone
rCell1 spl @0, spcsz
mov }rCell1, >rCell1
rCell2 spl @0, impsz
mov }rCell2, >rCell2
spl rCell2, {rCell2
mov.i #2*spcsz, }-spcsz*1
mov.i #2*spcsz, }-spcsz*1
mov.i #2*impsz, }-impsz*1
I hope I have been able to show some new aspects of these interesting
strategies.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Questions? Concerns? Comments? Complaints? Mail them to people who care.
Authors: Beppe Bezzi