David Webb wrote:
> Ed missed no bingos and lost 29 equity points. He made no major
> errors.
Well, yes, but after John's phony Ed could have blocked his subsequent
106-point play. If you programmed the computer to simulate with
knowledge of opponent's rack, I suspect Ed would have lost 50+ points
of equity on that move. This is where this type of analysis seriously
falls down. If Ed had blocked, everyone watching on the internet would
have praised his excellent play. Yet the analysis would no doubt have
suggested that he played worse!
No criticism of Ed; more a criticism of a game analysis that doesn't
take into account knowledge of the opponent's rack, when it's known.
(John/Jason - out of interest can you run a Quackle simulation
incorporating knowledge of the opponent's rack?)
Phil A
___________________________________________________________
Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit Yahoo! For Good
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/environment.html
