Perhaps I should make my question more specific. What are the ratings of the people that are beating quackle half of the time (for example against speedy player)? Marc
--- In [email protected], "John Van Pelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > >
