As good as Quackle is in general, it has a known bug in the endgame. I recall reading an email on the issue, wherein the valuation of moves in the final stages was totally wrong. So it would appear that unfortunately this current discussion is purely academic... Trevor
To: [email protected] From: [email protected] Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 16:33:44 -0700 Subject: Re: [quackle] Re: seeing possible future moves On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:14 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Matt, With one tile in the bag, there are only eight racks opponent could have, so each candidate play should have a win percentage of some multiple of 12.5%. The only exception should be ties (or the extremely rare candidate play of passing). All the best, Jim Kramer</HTML> Forgive my kibitzing - I lurk here out of theoretical interest only at this point in time. What Jim and Albert say would certainly be true for an exhaustive-search end-game player. A simulation that only looks 1 or 2 moves deep would not be expected to give such clean results for an endgame with a deeper move tree than that. When David states he "simulated" in the the original question, I assume that simulation does not do exhaustive search in the endgame (even if the "Championship Player" might). Forgive me if that assumption is wrong, I only state it because it might be the source of the disagreement. Steven Gordon _________________________________________________________________ Browse profiles for FREE! Meet local singles online. http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/150855801/direct/01/
