While I am a ABFGOOLL, the Qult of Quackle does amuse me.   It was always nice 
to see game analyses where the extremely capable player tries to figure out why 
Quackle believes the expert's play is ABILMOPSTU.  The player beseeches QuackL 
for wisdom like some Boeotian before Bakis, then cries when his sacrifice 
doesn't bring a vision.
 
Scrabool on the iPad, oh my.
 
We need more nymphs and fewer nymphos.
 

--- On Sun, 5/9/10, Trevor Halsall <[email protected]> wrote:


From: Trevor Halsall <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [quackle] Re: seeing possible future moves
To: "Quackle Usergroup" <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, May 9, 2010, 8:27 AM


  



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: quac...@yahoogroups .com
From: sgordon...@gmail. com
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, <bigj...@aol. com> 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  













Meet local singles online. Browse profiles for FREE! 




Reply via email to