Yeah, I know, I know.   But you are chasing some perfect simulation, when the 
bigger world is out there.  Go outside, go chase some Scrabble players.   But 
beware the ones with with swollen cheeks, in the grey furry sweaters--they are 
not real experts.
 
But the message is the same.  The known error bars in any simulation is 3.178%, 
so if you drive yourself crazy looking for bits and pieces in every sim, you 
have only driven yourself crazy.  Now if you looked at the Eigenvector of the 
Poisson distribution by means of a varimax rotation, you would realize how 
silly that really is.  
 
The highly esteemed Marlon Hill refered to this a "simming lunkheadedness."  
 
Who I am doesn't matter, for I do not play in tournaments or clubs.  Your 
polite salon Scrabble is of no interest to me.  
 
Quackle is not god, because god does not play Scrabble with the universe.
 


--- On Sat, 5/8/10, Albert Hahn <[email protected]> wrote:


From: Albert Hahn <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [quackle] seeing possible future moves
To: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, May 8, 2010, 10:10 AM


  




Anand, meet Zax.
Zax *is* his name, like PELE or MADONNA or Winter
or Rumpenstiltskin.
 
Zax also has carte-blanche for rude responses 
as long as they include a squirrel chasing reference. 
 
So, that is Zax.
Mind you, the police know him as Ron McGill.
As in the Beatles' lines:
"Her name was McGill and she called herself Lil
But everyone knew her as Nancy".
 
Hope this clears everything up, Anand.
 
Albert
I belive that girl's name in Rocky Raccoon is
actually spelled Magil.
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Anand Buddhdev 
To: quackle 
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: [quackle] seeing possible future moves

  

zax_cgp,

There's no need to be so rude. Oh, and signing the message with your name would 
be polite too.


On 8 May 2010 13:45, <zax_...@yahoo. com> wrote:







Are you being a little overANALytical?  There is bound to be error in an 
solution set.  Go outside and chase the squirrels or something.

Quackle is not god.

--- On Sat, 5/8/10, David B.Lewis <david_b_lewis@ yahoo.com> wrote:


From: David B.Lewis <david_b_lewis@ yahoo.com>
Subject: [quackle] seeing possible future moves
To: quac...@yahoogroups .com
Date: Saturday, May 8, 2010, 5:51 AM 
  


Toward the end of a game, I thought I had made a play that shut down the last 
bingo lane and assured a win. When I load the position into Quackle and ask 
Championship Player about the situation, it suggests a few different moves with 
a 100% win but not the move that I chose. When I specifically enter that move 
and then simulate, the moves that Quackle had suggested show up as winning 100% 
of the time, and the move that I chose shows up as winning 99.96% of the time.

For the life of me, I can't figure out what could happen in that 0.04% of the 
situations. There was only 1 tile in the bag at the time, so I've tried all of 
my opponent's possible racks, and nothing turns up that is a win.

Is there any way to get at the information that Quackle uses during a 
simulation, so that I could either determine that a mistake was made on 
Quackle's part (and that my move was a sure thing) or find out just what 
terrific move my opponent may have had?

Thx in advance.

PS: ideally, I'd like Quackle to say "Great move, but you missed the remote 
possibility of your opponent's disconnected thirteen here". On a related note, 
in a previous post, I thought it would also be useful to show where moves 
played, so that I could see, for example, that 75% of my opponent's responses 
to my move use a hook that I had opened up or a hot-spot that I had created or 
a spot I didn't block. 









Reply via email to