At first glance, this is an interesting question, if only because it invites definition of the term 'strength'. Although the direct question of how the different settings compare *with each other* could be answered with a series of automated games (1000 match-ups, let's say) between Quackles.
If the intent of the question, however, is to gauge how those settings compare with *human* players of various levels, it gets a little murkier. Even some of the artificially weakened bots (as in the original Maven, or on ISC), play approximately at a 1500 rating level (say) but the actual style of play (if you can call it a style) is far different from that of any human player at the equivalent level. Maybe this all means there are an infinite number of ways to suck at Scrabble. But is there only one way to be perfect? -jvp On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:09 PM, marc_roddis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > I'm very interested to know what you estimate the playing strength of > quackle to be. Is there a big difference between the playing strength > of the different players (speedy, 20 second, 5 minute)? I'm not really > good enough at scrabble to be able to estimate the playing strength > myself. > Marc > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
