For 2-blank positions where the difference between using one and both blanks ranges from 25-30 points, I would think that positional, game score, and other considerations would easily outweigh simple heuristics in determining the best play.
In other words, arguing whether Quackle Championship Player should, or should not, rate a given play in this range as the top play, is virtually pointless. In *other* other words, there would be virtually no case where one would agree "oh yes, only 28 points more, best to keep the 2nd blank," but automatically (in the same position) say, "ah, this other play scores *29* points more -- clearly better to spend both blanks!" -jvp On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:49 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > John-- > > FWIW, I believe Felt rated the blank at 29. > > Stu > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* John O'Laughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 06, 2008 4:23 PM > *Subject:* Re: [quackle] Quackle with 2 blanks needs some work > > Stu, > > You've stated the value of the blank as "about 30" and TalAQ scores 27 > more. Quackle usually rates the blank around 25. There are plenty of > bugs in Quackle, but I don't think this is one. > > John > > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:57 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jason, O'Laugh and all-- > > > > Not being a programmer, I only assume that a program modification > > could take care of this. Quackle Champion Player, set to Collins played > > Tal(A)Q for 64 pts. (QT plus 2 blanks off an A) when QaT for 37 was > > possible. Since every expert I know would play the latter to conserve a > > blank, it seems to me that learners would benefit if Quackle conserved a > > blank if, say, fewer than 30 points were gained by using the second > blank. > > > > Stu Goldman > > >
