Jump to content

Computer Bridge Final


DenisO

Recommended Posts

Very interesting show. Thanks BBO and organizers and participants for putting it on.

 

The declarer play and bidding standards where very high. It seems Jack was done in somewhat by overly aggressive bidding. It probably works very well against weaker opponents, but fails miserably against equal or better. Just like in real life F2F bridge.

 

Congrats to WB5. I will DL it and try it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because there were only 6 contestants this year, with two qualifying for the Final (no semi-final as in previous years), Jack was deliberately set up to play even more aggressively than normal. This stategy worked for the Round Robin as Jack topped that. However it seems to have backfired in the Final and Wbridge5 was a worthy winner.

 

I believe that although Wbridge5 is freeware, the version that played in Estoril is not the same as the free version. This was alluded to by Al Levy at the close of the commentary. I don't know if there are plans to release the stronger version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the programmer be allowed to change settings according to the state-of-the-match or at least make a "self-adapting-setting" that deals with both RR and KO environment. I can imagine real people taking different decisions in those situations, esp. if down with 16 boards to play or so. Jack should be allowed to do the same.

 

Jack is still the best! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the programmer be allowed to change settings according to the state-of-the-match or at least make a "self-adapting-setting" that deals with both RR and KO environment. I can imagine real people taking different decisions in those situations, esp. if down with 16 boards to play or so. Jack should be allowed to do the same.

If the programmer is changing settings during the match, IMHO it's like a kibitzer giving advice to a player, e.g. whispering to him "since you're behind, you should bid more aggressively".

 

So if you want your program to adjust its play based on the state of the match, that has to be built into the program. It would be OK if this is an option that can be set when starting the tournament (like the "self-adapting-setting" you mention), but I don't think the programmer should be allowed to make any changes to settings once the event has gotten under way.

 

A program that knows how to adjust its behavior automatically is arguably a better player than one that can't, and deserves to win. Why should the latter type of program be allowed an assist from its programmer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...