How to figure which words? You don't really want to just leave out certain words from the 'simulated 1600-player' vocab, but suppose you had a way of assessing the "commonality" of a given word?
There's two factors you could easily obtain as inputs to a probabilistic "likelihood of unknownness" function: 1) Number of hits that Google returns for the word (RETINAS: 816,000; GESNERIAD: 28,700; STRONGYL: 3,390). Downscale this number if the search yields a "Did you mean..." hint. 2) Rack probability for 7s and higher, power-tile count for 6s and below. Compute a value based on these considerations and compare against a randomly-generated value. As for myself, I wouldn't play such a computer opponent, but it might be interesting to see the results of research into "artifical stupidity". In fact, there might even be an Ignoble Prize in here somewhere. --gvc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > We can only guess the playing vocabulary of a top human player, so who > knows. We know that Quackle has a perfect vocabulary-hakim withstanding. > > So could we guess how much of advantage having a perfect vocabulary > would be by simulating Quackle perfect against Quackle not perfect > (QNP)? Would it be possible to load a second dictionary file or have > two instances of Quackle play each other? > > A simple scenario would have QNP have a limited vocabulary of all 3, 4, > 5's and say 80% of the 6, 7, 8, 9's. It would never challenge QP... > > Anybody up to this? > > Ron > > > >
