It's not the first message, though. Mine is the 7th message. I don't understand why none of them are displaying.
But I'm more curious about what those guys think about my suggestions/ideas for quackle.
Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/0liolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
There are 2 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Question about Quackle Features
From: "meldeiry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2. Re: Question about Quackle Features
From: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:12:13 -0000
From: "meldeiry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Question about Quackle Features
Jason and John,
I have a few questions about possible features. I don't know
whether they're possible, or even useful, since I don't know as much
about the game as you guys, and I don't know anything about
programming. But here they are:
1) Can it be programmed so that you just enter the whole game and
then it spits out an analysis for you, play by play? It occurs to
me that this would be a huge improvement over Maven, which only lets
you sim one position at a time. What a pain.
2) Is there anyway the simmer can breakdown differences in equity?
How much of the 5 point improvement of this play over that one is
because it doesn't put a vowel next to a TWL? How much is because
of a superior leave? Etc.
3) Finally, I think it would be really neat if the simming engine
could tell you when a certain play by you our your opponent follows
your candidate play a large percentage of the time. This might be
particularly useful in the endgame. For example, if I drop 1 tile
to fish, what percent of the time do I bingo? I guess this would
require an inference engine to be accurate, since the opponent is
likely to respond by closing lines. How often does a certain setup
work? Is play X a mistake because 85% of the time opponent can
respond with QAT for 60? (That would have to be a pretty dumb play!)
Anyway, I'm not sure whether any of these ideas make any sense or
are feasible or useful, but I'm very curious to hear what you guys
think of them. Thanks again for creating this; it's tremendous.
Mike Eldeiry (who doesn't want to get kicked off this list for not
signing his name!)
PS Why can't we see the messages that people have posted here? I
don't get it.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:18:31 +0100
From: Anand Buddhdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question about Quackle Features
meldeiry wrote:
> PS Why can't we see the messages that people have posted here? I
> don't get it.
Mike,
That's because you have the privilege of sending the first post to this
list! There are no archives yet.
Anand
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quackle/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "quackle" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
