Andy_L Posted February 26, 2012 Report Share Posted February 26, 2012 When a Robot Tournament does not have a full field consider letting "GIB" compete. Add a GIB player to the list of human players so we can see GIB's result vs. ours. Of course, GIB would be a non-BBO masterpointing participant. It would be curious to me to see the GIB result posted... against the field of us humans. If the field were of a small enough size... add multiple GIB players to the field -say maximum of three (3). It would be curious to me to see the results of one GIB player vs. another GIB player; would they have identical results? How varied would their results be? As a last benefit at least I would know the competing GIB would be subject same GIB play as humans are... and I'll be able to imagine in binary code somewhere one GIB cussing out another for a bad result on a hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Unless we force them to use different random number sequences, all robot-only tables would be expected to have the same results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloa513 Posted March 13, 2012 Report Share Posted March 13, 2012 Unless we force them to use different random number sequences, all robot-only tables would be expected to have the same results.But won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Unless we force them to use different random number sequences, all robot-only tables would be expected to have the same results. But there would only be one robot-only table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 But there would only be one robot-only table.Andy suggested "maximum of three". I thought the point of his suggestion is to add enough robot tables so that we would get reasonable matchpointing -- matchpointing in a small field is pretty random, because there's not much field protection (the smaller the field, the closer it is to BAM, generally considered the toughest form of scoring). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Andy suggested "maximum of three". I thought the point of his suggestion is to add enough robot tables so that we would get reasonable matchpointing -- matchpointing in a small field is pretty random, because there's not much field protection (the smaller the field, the closer it is to BAM, generally considered the toughest form of scoring). Oh I see. I missed the maximum-of-three part. I think an excellent idea would be to use one or more robots, and give them matchpoints but not give matchpoints to players against the robots. It would be a way to find out how good the robots really are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.