BBO Discussion Forums: Grrrrrr... - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Grrrrrr...

#1 User is offline   daveharty 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 694
  • Joined: 2010-October-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ann Arbor, MI
  • Interests:Bridge, juggling, disc sports, Jane Austen, writing, cosmology, and Mexican food

Posted 2012-August-14, 02:40

http://tinyurl.com/8doqmdv
Revised Bridge Personality: 44 43 33 44

Dianne, I'm holding in my hand a small box of chocolate bunnies... --Agent Dale Cooper
0

#2 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,070
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2012-August-14, 09:39

Basic bots suck. Not really worth complaining about. If you want a better game pay up for the advanced bots.
0

#3 User is offline   Bbradley62 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,542
  • Joined: 2010-February-01
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY, USA

Posted 2012-August-14, 11:09

I think the point is more that there's no point in complaining about GIB's card-play.
0

#4 User is offline   daveharty 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 694
  • Joined: 2010-October-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ann Arbor, MI
  • Interests:Bridge, juggling, disc sports, Jane Austen, writing, cosmology, and Mexican food

Posted 2012-August-18, 14:56

View PostStephen Tu, on 2012-August-14, 09:39, said:

Basic bots suck. Not really worth complaining about. If you want a better game pay up for the advanced bots.



View PostBbradley62, on 2012-August-14, 11:09, said:

I think the point is more that there's no point in complaining about GIB's card-play.


Fair enough, but if someone ever does get around to addressing GIB's declarer play issues, surely it can't hurt to have a database of examples of poor technique. And if nobody does get around to it, or it proves technically impossible, there's no harm in a Catalogue of Horrors.
Revised Bridge Personality: 44 43 33 44

Dianne, I'm holding in my hand a small box of chocolate bunnies... --Agent Dale Cooper
0

#5 User is offline   Stephen Tu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,070
  • Joined: 2003-May-14

Posted 2012-August-18, 16:57

View Postdaveharty, on 2012-August-18, 14:56, said:

Fair enough, but if someone ever does get around to addressing GIB's declarer play issues, surely it can't hurt to have a database of examples of poor technique. And if nobody does get around to it, or it proves technically impossible, there's no harm in a Catalogue of Horrors.


It doesn't really help. Because examples like you give here are already fixed in the advanced bots. Advanced bot with enough time won't make this kind of blunder at all.

If you are playing with basic bots, it has the far superior (and more computation intensive) Gibson algorithm commented out according to barmar, and it is playing at an ultra-fast rate where it can't analyze a lot of deals using the older double-dummy technique either. It is as if you are playing with someone who has had a stroke wiping out his higher reasoning capabilities, and also asking him to play at lightning speed. Documenting that person's errors under such conditions doesn't really serve much purpose. There's no path to improving GIB when it's crippled like that.

Bidding database errors, on the other hand, affect both the basic and advanced bots, and are more feasible to fix for both. The advanced bots have better "judgment", but better book bid definitions help them both quite a bit.
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users