<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>An Optimal Mastermind (4,7) Strategy and More Results in the Expected Case · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1305.1010/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1305.1010/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>An Optimal Mastermind (4,7) Strategy and More Results in the Expected Case — mentioned by chrisconley</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14343372</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1305.1010:14343372</guid><pubDate>Mon, 15 May 2017 17:28:14 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve been studying the game of hangman (somewhat obsessively) for the last 6 or so years. I only recently discovered this Knuth paper via An Optimal Mastermind (4,7) Strategy and More Results in the Expected Case [1]. I think the reason it has captivated me for so long is because of the unexpected insight that choosing a known short-term failure or an increased chance of short-term failure (when optimizing for information gain) will result in quicker paths to your final goal AND decreased amounts of short-term failures. My repo (currently being reworked) for simulating different strategies in…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1305.1010/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.GT</category></item></channel></rss>
