GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 446154
Freecell does not honor valid moves
Last modified: 2011-04-14 21:10:17 UTC
Please describe the problem: Attempts to move a stack of cards to a valid position is blocked sometimes. The problem is most common when the number of reserved slots used is greater than 2 (3 or 4). By changing the layout, sometimes the program will fix itself. Is there anyway to debug this? Steps to reproduce: 1. Just play the game. 2. 3. Actual results: It happens most of the time. You can undo some moves and sometimes get around the problem. Expected results: The game should allow valid moves. Does this happen every time? Most times Other information: I can provide screen shots of the setup/problem.
To see this problem: Fill up the reserve. Try to move a stack of cards from one foundation position to another. This is only one type of failure. The bug is apparent when the number of open positions in the reserve section is zero and the number of open positions in the foundation is less than one or two.
Re-assigning to default owner.
I can confirm that bug on 2.28.0 version
Do you have a screenshot showing the card distribution when this problem occurred?
Created attachment 150848 [details] Freecel bug Example here is slightly different because I AM ABLE to do invalid move. It's all about this six - I can move it to the seven on the right however not on this free place
(In reply to comment #5) > Example here is slightly different because I AM ABLE to do invalid move. So is this, or is this not, the same problem as comment 0? Anyway, can you please explicitly list the sequence of legal moves you want to do, but the programme doesn't let you do, in this screenshot?
so in this example I want to move marked 6 in the second column to the free space in the fourth column obviously I can't do that however program let me move that six on seven in the sixth column. Earlier found problem to do a valid move but this kind of bugs appears occasionally
Yes, but how would you deconstruct that combined move into a sequence of 1-card moves involving only the cards to be moved, and any free spaces on reserve and foundation?
that's why it's different because I can't and programs let me do that
now I'm trying to reproduce my first problem but with no result
(In reply to comment #7) > so in this example I want to move marked 6 in the second column to the free > space in the fourth column obviously I can't do that however program let me > move that six on seven in the sixth column. (In reply to comment #9) > that's why it's different because I can't and programs let me do that Now I'm confused. Are you saying the programme lets you move the 6543 from 2nd to 4th foundation, or doesn't let you? Because that's not a legal move. Moving it to the 6th is a legal move however.
now I see that it was my mistake... Sorry for taking your time
How can I attach an image of the problem??
Use the link below: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?bugid=446154&action=enter
Created attachment 150863 [details] example 1 Queen stack to King fails Here is an example: I can't move the red Queen-6 stack from column 3 to the black King in column 2.
So the programme doesn't let you make that move. Can you explicitly list the 1-card moves that you would use to move this stack manually?
Created attachment 150864 [details] example 2 - 8 stack to 9 fails Can't move the black 8 stack from column 1 to red 9 in column 4. Move column 7 black 5 to column 8 red 6, now the 8 stack move is allowed.
Why you think these are legal moves in the first place (as per the freecell rules)? I don't think they are legal.
Because the moves will sometimes be allowed, which is legal.
Err, no. To demonstrate the move is legal, you need to provide an explicit list of 1-card moves deconstructing the card-stack move. In both your screenshots, I don't see how you can do that, and thus conclude the move is illegal.
-> aisleriot Unless you can demonstrate that this is a legal move, I'll assume you've simply misunderstood the rules, and close this bug.
No response; closing. If you can answer the question in comment 18, please re-open the bug.