Many thanks for this, Eugene Joe
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 21:50 -0800, Eugene Deon wrote: > If you're into studying hooks lately, you might find this useful: > > > I took the idea of playability and tried computing the relative > imporance of all the words with respect to needing to know and find > the hooks of that word to make the best play possible. This list is > based on (only) 2 million games of quackle speedy self-play. No > surprise the 2s win out. No matter what letter is hooked, the word > accumulates equity difference, so the more hooks a word has, the > higher it tends to be in the list. > > > And the winner is..... WE! > > > http://www.eugenedeon.com/OWL2_hookability_jan_2009.txt > > > exact details: > > > -let A be the set of all words hooked in the best play > -if A is nonempty, find the first subtoptimal play which hooked the > set of words B such that A - B is non empty > -accumulate the equity difference of the two plays to each word in A - > B > > > example: > > > quackle's top 3 moves are: > > > 1) DARK, (HINGE)R, A(TONE) 30.2109 > 2) ARK, (HINGE)R, A(TONE) 27.789 > 3) KA(N)TAR, A(TONE) 24.9023 > > > the best played used an R hook on HINGE, and an A hook on TONE. So > did the next play, so skip it. the 3rd best play didn't hook anything > on HINGE, so accumulate 30.2109 - 24.9023 to HINGE. A(TONE) was still > made on the 3rd play, so don't accumulate points to it. This is > obviously an arbitrary choice, and I don't claim for it to be correct > (or for any of the data to be accurate). I'll keep running it for a > while. Maybe until 30 million games or so. Then the middle section > should be more accurate. The top is fairly stable. > > > Eugene d'Eon > > > > > >
