Played around 50-100 games. Highest Score vs Q so far 640-510 (the one CSW word was TEEK)
Major points of note: Quackle plays poorly when it is either very farbehind or in front (+/- 100 points) due to "Winningness" rankings Quackle analyzes it's endgames the same way it analyzes midgame: this cause endgame errors. The 5 minute Quackle is barely noticeable increase in skill than the 20 second. Quackle undervalues it's valuation index. Suggested algorithm would be something along the lines of winningness*valuation. Quackle seems to no attention whatsoever to hotspot replies or "most- likely' scenarios or 'most dangerous' scenarios. This all seems to be lumped together under 'ply' Questions Are the nominal values of letter leaves synergistically balanced? eg biasing x-vowel leaves instead of X-consonat leaves, CH, CK etc. K is a regularly undervalued letter (it's now even more powerful, and there's only one of them) - has this been factored into the balance-rack algorithm for CSW ie CSW should have a different valuation for the Q to TWL, as would the U even though a leave of EET and EOT value the same, EOT should be ranked higher since there are 3 letters, not two. Do the valuations on letters adjust depending on how many letters are left in the bag, or how many of an individual letter remain? A customisable nominal value for each letter would be a nice addition. Best scrabble AI available. (except the endgame) Regards, TcheQ
