On 7/16/06, John O'Laughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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
Interesting, John. How was the penalty for opening up a TWS computed? It would be interesting to know how often simulation roughly agreed with the computed penalty? Regards, Steve ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/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/
