No, not in my opinion. To me, Quackle is a multimodal tool -- like a Swiss Army knife, you only expect certain aspects of it to do a good job on certain tasks -- and if you address the right function to the right task it does a wonderful job. You wouldn't write to the Swiss Army people complaining that the saw blade did a rotten job of opening your heineken.
In this case, you used the tool correctly, Stu -- you switched to a direct sim to get a confirmation of your intuition. The tool worked as expected. This is not to say the static leave tables or other heuristics can't be improved -- but Speedy Player and Championship Player are not, by definition, going to give the same answer as a full sim, not because they need improvement, but because they are answering a different question. By the way: ARREEDE# -John On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:55 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Everyone-- > > Another example when Quackle missed an obvious clear choice. Set > to OWL06, it generated the best choice for the opening rack ADEEERR as > REREAD at 8g, A quick inspection told me that the best leave from that rack > would be ADER, so the play should involve EER. REE was far down the list of > choices, and I decided that ERE at 8h would be best, to avoid both a vowel > next to a DLS and front hooks on the DWS row, and typed it in to sim. The > "Generate Choices" option placed it 11th, about half a point below the 10th > choice, and a valuation some 3 points lower than REE, which I > don'tunderstand at all. > > In simulation, ERE quickly rose to the top,.so I stopped after a > little over 500 iterations and proceeded with the game. Does this signal > that some adjustment of the tile values, etc., of Quackle is needed? > > Stu Goldman > > > >
