Povratnik Posted December 13, 2019 Report Share Posted December 13, 2019 Look here how my partner is throwing an ace... (Maybe there is a rational explanation, but I don't see it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smerriman Posted December 13, 2019 Report Share Posted December 13, 2019 (Maybe there is a rational explanation, but I don't see it)1♠ promises 8 HCP. You're "guaranteed" to have the king of clubs, so throwing the ace doesn't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Povratnik Posted December 13, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2019 1♠ promises 8 HCP. You're "guaranteed" to have the king of clubs, so throwing the ace doesn't matter.Well, having in mind that robots themselves sometimes severely lie about points, they should allow the possibility that partner also lies, for whatever reason. Especially when we are green against red, which fact actually was the reason for my improper overcall. But I don't want to be a nuisance... I see your point and I understand now. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smerriman Posted December 13, 2019 Report Share Posted December 13, 2019 Yeah, not saying it *should*, but it's standard GIB and they'll never change it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilowsky Posted December 14, 2019 Report Share Posted December 14, 2019 Robots seem to me to play at least as well as advanced/expert humans. In other words, reliably better than me. This is a wonderful thing because it means two important things. First I can trust their responses almost (but not always) all the time. And secondly I can sometimes use their reliable behavior to defeat them. Think of garbage stayman, but there are many more interesting and fun examples. Robots do make what appear to be sub-standard plays: these plays should not be characterised as 'mistakes'. When I discover that I have achieved a surprisingly good percentage against robots (good results always surprise me) I check the double-dummy afterwards and find that during play the robot defenders have chosen a sub-standard line of play that enables me to get a better result. Either that or I still lack the ability to realise that it is possible to make a play that will defeat the double dummy (The double dummy is a great feature that has improved my play tremendously). Sometimes when playing against robots the play begins with a lead that should result in me being '-1' rather than making the contract. In, I understand this to mean that some randomisation has been introduced into the computer programming so that playing against robots by humans does not become boring and an element of chance is introduced. I suspect that to a human this could appear as though the robot is 'making a mistake', 'doing something wrong', 'being silly', etc. Really. No. Robots are not human, this is simply anthropomorphisation. Only humans 'make mistakes'. Robots and humans will discard any card of equal value randomly, even Aces. Robots do not dream of electric sheep. They do not think, or have feelings. The reason that different people get different results on the same board, or the same person gets different results on the same board is that the robot programming seems to be designed to have some randomness to simulate human behaviour in order to pass the Turing test ( ). Arnold Schwarzenegger is not a robot and the robots on BBO do not make 'mistakes'. Just like the 'Terminator' you can't reason with a robot: I've tried - it never works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedrao Posted December 18, 2019 Report Share Posted December 18, 2019 double dummy play robots know a lot that we do not know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilowsky Posted January 1, 2020 Report Share Posted January 1, 2020 Perhaps the particular robot that you are referring to is called Sartre or Descarte and is out at Starbucks at the moment getting a coffee. When he gets back I'm sure he will have an engaging conversation with you about epistemology and deontology: good luck with that. On the whole, I agree with you, there is probably a lot that you do not know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhasbeen Posted January 1, 2020 Report Share Posted January 1, 2020 1♠ promises 8 HCP. You're "guaranteed" to have the king of clubs, so throwing the ace doesn't matter. Any play that has nothing to gain and everything to lose is a bad play. At best it could break even. In this case there was plenty to lose in terms of scoring, not to mention the aggravation it causes the human player. It's almost as though it was set up to aggravate and annoy the player. For example, when it can claim the rest of the tricks it starts trumping it's own aces and kings, or discards them on low spot cards that are known to be good. What other motive could there be? Also, when it thinks it "has you" it will draw back before letting the card go as though it were uncorking a 100 mph fastball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhasbeen Posted January 1, 2020 Report Share Posted January 1, 2020 Robots seem to me to play at least as well as advanced/expert humans. In other words, reliably better than me. This is a wonderful thing because it means two important things. First I can trust their responses almost (but not always) all the time. And secondly I can sometimes use their reliable behavior to defeat them. Think of garbage stayman, but there are many more interesting and fun examples. Robots do make what appear to be sub-standard plays: these plays should not be characterised as 'mistakes'. When I discover that I have achieved a surprisingly good percentage against robots (good results always surprise me) I check the double-dummy afterwards and find that during play the robot defenders have chosen a sub-standard line of play that enables me to get a better result. Either that or I still lack the ability to realise that it is possible to make a play that will defeat the double dummy (The double dummy is a great feature that has improved my play tremendously). Sometimes when playing against robots the play begins with a lead that should result in me being '-1' rather than making the contract. In, I understand this to mean that some randomisation has been introduced into the computer programming so that playing against robots by humans does not become boring and an element of chance is introduced. I suspect that to a human this could appear as though the robot is 'making a mistake', 'doing something wrong', 'being silly', etc. Really. No. Robots are not human, this is simply anthropomorphisation. Only humans 'make mistakes'. Robots and humans will discard any card of equal value randomly, even Aces. Robots do not dream of electric sheep. They do not think, or have feelings. The reason that different people get different results on the same board, or the same person gets different results on the same board is that the robot programming seems to be designed to have some randomness to simulate human behaviour in order to pass the Turing test ( ). Arnold Schwarzenegger is not a robot and the robots on BBO do not make 'mistakes'. Just like the 'Terminator' you can't reason with a robot: I've tried - it never works. "Robots seem to me to play at least as well as advanced/expert humans." The advanced humans who can average 56%-58% or better over a reasonable sample of games will come out ahead more often than not. The BBO robots would have no chance against humans that average 60% or better in ACBL Daylong Matchpoint games. This human edge probably covers a much wider range of robot games than these, but I'm picking them since they have the largest fields, containing dozen's of expert humans, and I have a huge sample of ACBL Daylong stats to base my findings on. 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.