John--
Thanx for teaching me a Collins bingo. I basically agree with your
position.
Stu
----- Original Message -----
From: John Van Pelt
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: [quackle] Another Quackle poor choice
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
