Scarabin

Thanks, now I am with you.

You've lost me. This is way beyond my level of competence.

One aspect of genius is to innovate - to change one's field through original thought - and Ginsberg certainly managed this, just as Einstein did or Hammett in his field! I would not expect any commercial software to go "open source": all control over development would be lost. Having said all that I think GIB suffers from the inherent limitations of random simulation. What I would hope for is that GIB could be used as a black box (which could still produce brilliant, normal or insane plays) and overlay a shield which would produce expert plays for specific situations and revert to GIB for any situations the shield did not cover. Surely this is both possible and highly desirable?

The nice thing about an override is it can be removed if necessary and it should not cause bugs in the existing code. That said, perhaps it would be possible to offer a choice: GIB with or without override? I know which I would choose. Good luck Barmar if you decide to give it a go.

There seems to be a flood of complaints about GIB setting up the setting tricks but not cashing them. Fixing this may require serious reprogramming of GIB's play engine but don't you think the time has come when someone has to bite the bullet and make a start on this? After all, superimposing a pragmatic interface in which GIB recognises the need to cash-out, examines what could go wrong and manages the trump suit, would eliminate most of these problems. Of course there is the butterfly in Brazil syndrome: a change at one end of a program may cause apparently totally unrelated crashes. I fear if nothing is done GIB will fall behind other robots and,eventually, fall into disuse. Maybe its value as a partner/tutor who never complains will ensure its continued use.

Yes, your own program gives complete flexibility. I have been working on a program but the volume of work is mind-boggling. You might be interested in a program I have discovered. It's called Oxford Bridge and it allows bidding systems to be entered in near normal language. I think the play engine is pragmatic superimposed on random simulation. I am not sure of the actual standard of play because I am having trouble downloading the trial version (perhaps due to my browser or an excess of zeal by McAfee).

Sorry, Inquiry is being kind but actually the underscores are my fumbling attempts to format my posts. The earliest posts are one continuous line the latest are formatted normally. Apologies if these underscores appeared like a petulant protest. I find the prohibition on promoting other robots very reasonable. Perhaps I should have gone back and edited these posts but I thought it probably was not worthwhile.

Sorry for the mistake about prolog - I could have sworn I got it from one of Ginsberg's many papers on GIB. On the point about "simulations taking over from convevtions at a fairly early stage" I meant that my impression is that GIB and some other robots only follow bidding rules for the first couple of rounds. I originally bought GIB as a way of learning Kaplan-Sheinwold and Moscito, but was sadly disappointed. Anyhow apologies for the slip.

May I add my two cents worth? GIB is programmed in Prolog, which uses database technology. If you have modded a wargame like Waterloo you,ve encountered Prolog. Alternetively you could get a feel for it from Oxford Bridge's bidding editor. Gib's bidding is based on a truncated version of Meadowlark's bidding database. Simulation takes over from convention at a fairly early stage. Improvements in bidding may only entail extension of the database although any extension/change may require heavy debugging. I do not find Giorgi's replies defensive, sometimes laconic. Here is the thing, it is frustrating to report an appalling action by GIB and have it rationalised as a permissable error but if you had to fix software you would first check that any report was a genuine bug. I suspect the best solution is to follow Fred's approach and play against GIB with a human partner, it is easier to tolerate silly plays by opponents than by partner. And no sane person would rate GIB as their favourite partner.

Thanks for your help.

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help.

Returning to bridge at my age, and after a lapse of about 30 years, I find that I have too many lapses of concentration to count suits etc. I wrote a program ( a sort of expanded version of Bridge Master's suit count) to count and record/synthesize suit lengths, honors in the unseen hands. I use it when playing Bridge Master, Reese classics, etc. and here cheating is not an issue. Without this program I would probably embarrass other players on BBO, with it I'd probably be a touch slow but it appears also cheating? I must admit it probably enables me to play a bit better than I remember playing in the early 1980's. I hasten to say I have never used the program online.

This brings up a nice point and one I have not seen answered. Is using artificial aids (e.g. notepad, card combination tables, single dummy solver, bidding notes) cheating?

Thanks that was quick. The trouble is no one wants to snitch and it sometimes seems easier to just retaliate in kind. I would be happy if I thought moderators would intervene automatically when they see cases of outright abuse and name calling. Keeping things private is tactful and understandable but perhaps tact should be kept for the victims rather than the perpetrators. Anyhow I am happy to rely on the current system. Sorry about Obama versus etc. I intended it as a query on the modern, rather cavalier attitude to laws of property and contract. I could have titled it "Eminent domain" but I thought "Obama versus ..." would be more topical and provocative. I guess I tried to be too brief and the title took over. For what it's worth I promise never again to post anything remotely religious or concerning cheating in bridge. These threads seem to bring out the very worst in posters.

I have 3 pet peeves: (1) topics on religion. (2) topics on cheating at bridge, these both bring no 3 out of the woodwork. (3) people who post and have no sense of humour.

I have noted complaints that reporting abuse in play fails to secure adequate action, and I have seen posts, especially in the Water Cooler, that offend every standard of civilised behaviour, not to mention the published standards for BBO. I can understand that monitors are reluctant to take drastic action such as expelling members, but would it not be possible first to issue private or public warnings and, if this does not work,to censor or even delete offending posts. I hope this might work since the perpetrators appear to think they are being clever rather than plain rude or stupid.

Thanks for the info. I take it upvotes and downvotes apply to the user rating? Does this go on all the time or are they updated periodically?

Can someone please me how Reputations are derived? They seem to be quantitative in nature ?

Forgive me if I appear rude, but I have to say imagination and original thought. I hasten to say that is just my opinion.

Thanks for your insight. Your comment opens up a deeper level of truth.

OK, Fair enough as a statement of your vision of life. However you wrong me when you assume I must be conventionally religious. Perhaps you could try thinking of me as an agnostic who has doubts about all explanations. I might allow myself to say that I think your view of life and the universe lacks something?

In another reply I pointed out that I do not claim to be a believer. I would expect however that you should not have difficulty in accepting that I do not find evolution intellectually appealing. I would give Darwin's theory the same respect which I give to Berkeley's. Why is it so strange to actually think about what you think about?

Perhaps you could point out which parts of my statement are "ahistorical nonsense", and perhaps you could cite some evidence backing your statements about Hitler?

I did not say that I am a believer. If anything I would confess that I find it difficult to come to a dogmatic conclusion and, being me, I would expect any thinking man to have the same problem. I do not expect to change anyone's mind. I do empathize with your professor: I cannot see any sense in espousing a belief which gives me no benefit. Perhaps we could distinguish between argument and emotion: I enjoy beauty and poetry but I do not confuse it with "holy writ" I expect you to understand me because you give the impression of an open mind.