On 7/16/06, Steven Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/16/06, John O'Laughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, at least for TWS. But the real plan is to improve simulation > > speed so that more people can play games against Quackle at its > > strongest. Defense in the static evaluator will give only very slight > > improvement to the simming player. > I believe there is no possible static analysis of board position that > would work appropriately for the majority of cases. Whether to create > openings is at least partially dependent on whether there are already > equivalent openings elsewhere. I suppose a static positional > evaluation of first moves might be conceivable. > > Simulation, on the other hand, should appropriately account for board > position in every conceivable case.
I experimented some back in April. In however many hundred thousand games, the player that penalized opening access to TWSes outscored the one that didn't by 0.7 points per game. That's worth about 2 NSA rating points for the Static or Endgame Players and nothing for the simming players. At this point I consider it an unnecessary complication, and I won't add it to the release version until it tests better. John ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/2pRQfA/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/0liolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
