'Move Strength' - details please
-
Rather than add a message somewhere saying that "Move strength" doesn't necessarily indicate the strength of the move – which seems a bit silly – why not simply change the problematical "Move strength" label? It doesn't have to be "Score strength", though that would be an improvement over the repeatedly criticized original phrase.
How about "% of possible max"? Can we maybe get a consensus on that, or on something else? There is clearly no consensus on "Move strength", which has come under criticism yet again and will never be acceptably correct as is.
-
@mistertoad You typed your explanation so well, why not type a detailed explanation for general public to read?
@betterlate1-0 said in 'Move Strength' - details please:
You typed your explanation so well ...
Thanks for that. So basically you are asking for more details. However, as others have said, the topic has already been thoroughly explored.
I certainly don't want to push this too far with Lexulous in case they simply remove the option! We don't want to lose such an intriguing concept, do we?
... why not type a detailed explanation for general public to read?
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. There is at least one other thread on this issue. I just wanted to hear from Lexulous themselves about this - to find out how much they are prepared to reveal about how the algorithm functions.
-
@betterlate1-0 said in 'Move Strength' - details please:
You typed your explanation so well ...
Thanks for that. So basically you are asking for more details. However, as others have said, the topic has already been thoroughly explored.
I certainly don't want to push this too far with Lexulous in case they simply remove the option! We don't want to lose such an intriguing concept, do we?
... why not type a detailed explanation for general public to read?
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. There is at least one other thread on this issue. I just wanted to hear from Lexulous themselves about this - to find out how much they are prepared to reveal about how the algorithm functions.
@mistertoad I was thinking if it bothered you perhaps it bothered others. Your explanation could resolve it for anyone with your thoughts about it. Nice of you to consider others. Now I am curious, why would you want them to reveal any of their algorithms?
-
@mistertoad I was thinking if it bothered you perhaps it bothered others. Your explanation could resolve it for anyone with your thoughts about it. Nice of you to consider others. Now I am curious, why would you want them to reveal any of their algorithms?
why would you want them to reveal any of their algorithms?
Well, I did use the phrase "to find out how much they are prepared to reveal". Perhaps I was expecting the reply on the lines of:
"We use an AI to collate player personal behavioural patterns eg if they save high scoring letter for a suitable occasion or whether they prefer to get rid of it early. And that is quite apart from the obvious problem of our suggestions leaving hooks for the opponent!"
As you know, we can see all this happening with chess engines that use neural networks!
-
why would you want them to reveal any of their algorithms?
Well, I did use the phrase "to find out how much they are prepared to reveal". Perhaps I was expecting the reply on the lines of:
"We use an AI to collate player personal behavioural patterns eg if they save high scoring letter for a suitable occasion or whether they prefer to get rid of it early. And that is quite apart from the obvious problem of our suggestions leaving hooks for the opponent!"
As you know, we can see all this happening with chess engines that use neural networks!
@mistertoad cant you keep track of what happens in the games without disclosure? I do not play chess but would rather use powers of observation..that is me
-
why would you want them to reveal any of their algorithms?
Well, I did use the phrase "to find out how much they are prepared to reveal". Perhaps I was expecting the reply on the lines of:
"We use an AI to collate player personal behavioural patterns eg if they save high scoring letter for a suitable occasion or whether they prefer to get rid of it early. And that is quite apart from the obvious problem of our suggestions leaving hooks for the opponent!"
As you know, we can see all this happening with chess engines that use neural networks!
@mistertoad said in 'Move Strength' - details please:
Perhaps I was expecting the reply on the lines of:
"We use an AI to collate player personal behavioural patterns eg if they save high scoring letter for a suitable occasion or whether they prefer to get rid of it early. And that is quite apart from the obvious problem of our suggestions leaving hooks for the opponent!"Perhaps you were wildly hallucinating.
As you know, we can see all this happening with chess engines that use neural networks!
But this is Lexulous, not DeepChess. These guys can't even get the arrow working again. In any event "Move strength" [sic] was never a mystery to me, because I paid for PRO and have used the post-game analysis. I'm quite sure that all they do is hook into the same max-score thing as for the analysis and just plug it straight into the "Move [sic] strength" score thermometer. If we had anybody other than sakamhari here, this would presumably be immediately confirmed.
-
@mistertoad cant you keep track of what happens in the games without disclosure? I do not play chess but would rather use powers of observation..that is me
"cant you keep track of what happens in the games without disclosure?"
Clearly there's a distinction between cheating with some sort of Scrabble software that suggests moves and the fascination of looking for a better move when 'Move Strength' says 23%.
In chess, both if the above cases would be cheating because you only have to choose between a handful of moves, say Nf3, a4, Qa4+ or Bg2. The chess engine might then give the respective results as 23%, 45%, 80% and 15%. Then you have a clear message of which variation to check over. It's cheating!
In Scrabble the datum tells you nothing about which combination of letters is optimal, nor where to put them. So I use it and feel that 'Move Strength' spurs me on to find a better word!
-
"cant you keep track of what happens in the games without disclosure?"
Clearly there's a distinction between cheating with some sort of Scrabble software that suggests moves and the fascination of looking for a better move when 'Move Strength' says 23%.
In chess, both if the above cases would be cheating because you only have to choose between a handful of moves, say Nf3, a4, Qa4+ or Bg2. The chess engine might then give the respective results as 23%, 45%, 80% and 15%. Then you have a clear message of which variation to check over. It's cheating!
In Scrabble the datum tells you nothing about which combination of letters is optimal, nor where to put them. So I use it and feel that 'Move Strength' spurs me on to find a better word!
@mistertoad I was not considering cheating even for a second. I am considering that when I take that move strength bar that seriously I spur myself on for a better move for that reason I do not think the bar needs any changing or explanation. but that is me I also do not bring chess into this because it has no tie to chess just lex
-
@mistertoad I was not considering cheating even for a second. I am considering that when I take that move strength bar that seriously I spur myself on for a better move for that reason I do not think the bar needs any changing or explanation. but that is me I also do not bring chess into this because it has no tie to chess just lex
@betterlate1-0
Thanks for your reply. I only mentioned chess because I was hoping that we might develop insights into both Scrabble and chess by examining the differences and similarities between them.I hope you did not think that I was accusing you of cheating. If others need the ego boost of winning so much that they cheat, that's their business. Unless money is involved, I really don't care at all. I only care about my own performance, whether I am progressing and learning more about the game. If I got into knots every time I suspected that my opponent was cheating I wouldn't enjoy playing!
Yes, I agree with you that the 'Move Strength' bar is a splendid addition to the Lexulous website and spurs us on to get the best out of this wonderful word game.
-
@betterlate1-0
Thanks for your reply. I only mentioned chess because I was hoping that we might develop insights into both Scrabble and chess by examining the differences and similarities between them.I hope you did not think that I was accusing you of cheating. If others need the ego boost of winning so much that they cheat, that's their business. Unless money is involved, I really don't care at all. I only care about my own performance, whether I am progressing and learning more about the game. If I got into knots every time I suspected that my opponent was cheating I wouldn't enjoy playing!
Yes, I agree with you that the 'Move Strength' bar is a splendid addition to the Lexulous website and spurs us on to get the best out of this wonderful word game.
@mistertoad I did not think any such thing but fact is ,anyone is free to assume and guess as they are prone to do but as long as I know I don't ..that is what counts. Only one a cheater cheats is themselves.
-
@mistertoad I did not think any such thing but fact is ,anyone is free to assume and guess as they are prone to do but as long as I know I don't ..that is what counts. Only one a cheater cheats is themselves.
Only one a cheater cheats is themselves
Sure thing!
Historically, chess websites have had lots of difficulties with cheaters and have now developed a whole arsenal of methods to combat it.
Many times I have had a won game but, instead of resigning, they sit tight in the hope that I will leave (or perhaps just to irritate me). I just open my browser and read an article. They then wait until their allotted time is about to run out and then make a move, hoping that I have stopped watching. Then I mate them.
They are probably just teenage boys, high on adrenalin. These days the website warns them that, if they use this ploy again, they will receive a temporary ban.
Apologies for digressing into referring to chess again! I hope you have a pleasant and relaxing Christmas.
-
Only one a cheater cheats is themselves
Sure thing!
Historically, chess websites have had lots of difficulties with cheaters and have now developed a whole arsenal of methods to combat it.
Many times I have had a won game but, instead of resigning, they sit tight in the hope that I will leave (or perhaps just to irritate me). I just open my browser and read an article. They then wait until their allotted time is about to run out and then make a move, hoping that I have stopped watching. Then I mate them.
They are probably just teenage boys, high on adrenalin. These days the website warns them that, if they use this ploy again, they will receive a temporary ban.
Apologies for digressing into referring to chess again! I hope you have a pleasant and relaxing Christmas.
@mistertoad they do the same thing in lex, without penalty. But, even if young boys with adrenalin rush they need to learn right or wrong. Anyway hope you have a wonderful Christmas. Thank you.
-
While we're on the subject, don't forget that "Move Strength" as it is currently titled, is not infallible.
Here's an example:
Using the "S" still in the rack, to make SCUDS, would be worth a couple more points, so SCUD's strength is a bit under 100%.
Interesting but no big deal
-
@mistertoad I did not think any such thing but fact is ,anyone is free to assume and guess as they are prone to do but as long as I know I don't ..that is what counts. Only one a cheater cheats is themselves.
@betterlate1-0 if money is involved still no excuse to cheat
-
"cant you keep track of what happens in the games without disclosure?"
Clearly there's a distinction between cheating with some sort of Scrabble software that suggests moves and the fascination of looking for a better move when 'Move Strength' says 23%.
In chess, both if the above cases would be cheating because you only have to choose between a handful of moves, say Nf3, a4, Qa4+ or Bg2. The chess engine might then give the respective results as 23%, 45%, 80% and 15%. Then you have a clear message of which variation to check over. It's cheating!
In Scrabble the datum tells you nothing about which combination of letters is optimal, nor where to put them. So I use it and feel that 'Move Strength' spurs me on to find a better word!
Clearly there's a distinction between cheating with some sort of Scrabble software that suggests moves and the fascination of looking for a better move when 'Move Strength' says 23%.
I was not considering cheating even for a second. I am considering that when I take that move strength bar that seriously I spur myself on for a better move
Nevertheless, if either of you are using the score thermometer without your opponent being aware of this, you're cheating.
[I know, because I did this for months with mine. When I finally got back up to 69% wins (which took me a lot longer than I'd supposed, though I think I won every game but one) and told her, she was – to my surprise and relief – not at all mad, as she was figuring I'd beat her anyway because I take hours on moves while she plays really fast (which I had been doing, since I'd gotten up to 69% in the first place).]
I assume we all agree on this.
-
While we're on the subject, don't forget that "Move Strength" as it is currently titled, is not infallible.
Here's an example:
Using the "S" still in the rack, to make SCUDS, would be worth a couple more points, so SCUD's strength is a bit under 100%.
Interesting but no big deal<"Move Strength" as it is currently titled, is not infallible
I think it IS a 'big deal' - it's a bug in the software which is misleading.
Please, Lexulous, check this problem out!
-
Clearly there's a distinction between cheating with some sort of Scrabble software that suggests moves and the fascination of looking for a better move when 'Move Strength' says 23%.
I was not considering cheating even for a second. I am considering that when I take that move strength bar that seriously I spur myself on for a better move
Nevertheless, if either of you are using the score thermometer without your opponent being aware of this, you're cheating.
[I know, because I did this for months with mine. When I finally got back up to 69% wins (which took me a lot longer than I'd supposed, though I think I won every game but one) and told her, she was – to my surprise and relief – not at all mad, as she was figuring I'd beat her anyway because I take hours on moves while she plays really fast (which I had been doing, since I'd gotten up to 69% in the first place).]
I assume we all agree on this.
Nevertheless, if either of you are using the score thermometer without your opponent being aware of this, you're cheating.
Of course we are not! How can it be cheating to use an option provided by Lexulous themselves?
she was – to my surprise and relief – not at all mad
Why would she be cross? There's no reason why you shouldn't take hours when playing by email.
I think we might all benefit if Lexulous:
(a) mentioned the 'Move Strength' concept up front when people first arrive to the website
(b) added it as a clickable option which would only be used if both players agreed to by clicking before they agreed to play together.
Please Lexulous, can you take this idea on board once this thread discussion is completed?
-
<"Move Strength" as it is currently titled, is not infallible
I think it IS a 'big deal' - it's a bug in the software which is misleading.
Please, Lexulous, check this problem out!
@mistertoad said in 'Move Strength' - details please:
I think it IS a 'big deal' - it's a bug in the software which is misleading.
Please, Lexulous, check this problem out!
I think you're being unreasonable, and I assume @ThatGuyThere202 agrees. To mention chess again, it's as if you were demanding that a 1950s chess engine be able not only to beat the top grandmasters, but to make the perfect move every time.
As my grandmother would say, "Blessed is he who expecteth nothing, for he shall not be disappointed." And I don't think there's much reason to be disappointed with the score thermometer, which works well enough when it's not broken and going up and down like it was again yesterday (and still today, I just now notice – grr-r). One of the things they could do is fix the bug that causes this recurring misfunction. And if they aren't going to do that (or other reasonable and often simple things that have been proposed to them), they aren't going to painstakingly hone their max-score module either. Don't get me wrong: I agree that something should be done. But I say just change its name and/or visibly document that it isn't precisely perfect, which would be quick and easy. It just now occurs to me that adding "estimated" to the thermometer's pop-up would do it: "Estimated score strength" or "Estimated % of max possible", for example (I prefer the first, but not "Estimated move strength"). But one apparently can't expect even this from the Lexulous team, let alone perfection in regard to the max score.
-
Nevertheless, if either of you are using the score thermometer without your opponent being aware of this, you're cheating.
Of course we are not! How can it be cheating to use an option provided by Lexulous themselves?
she was – to my surprise and relief – not at all mad
Why would she be cross? There's no reason why you shouldn't take hours when playing by email.
I think we might all benefit if Lexulous:
(a) mentioned the 'Move Strength' concept up front when people first arrive to the website
(b) added it as a clickable option which would only be used if both players agreed to by clicking before they agreed to play together.
Please Lexulous, can you take this idea on board once this thread discussion is completed?
@mistertoad @roymccoy @b-birney You will not like what I am about to say..but here goes. I think the big deal is in how seriously this is being taken by so few. I do not think there are that many perfectionists here and I think the people who can make changes are probably busy with a lot of other more important things. Give them a break. See told you you would not like what I said.
Maybe I should have just ignored this. -
Nevertheless, if either of you are using the score thermometer without your opponent being aware of this, you're cheating.
Of course we are not! How can it be cheating to use an option provided by Lexulous themselves?
she was – to my surprise and relief – not at all mad
Why would she be cross? There's no reason why you shouldn't take hours when playing by email.
I think we might all benefit if Lexulous:
(a) mentioned the 'Move Strength' concept up front when people first arrive to the website
(b) added it as a clickable option which would only be used if both players agreed to by clicking before they agreed to play together.
Please Lexulous, can you take this idea on board once this thread discussion is completed?
@mistertoad said in 'Move Strength' - details please:
Of course we are not [cheating]! How can it be cheating to use an option provided by Lexulous themselves?
This is what I said to myself too, though in a sniggering way and with a distinct amount of sheepishness. I could say this, especially since our explicit rule was that we couldn't use anything outside of Lexulous. Nevertheless, whether technically cheating or not, I was taking unfair advantage of her and I think that may unquestionably be considered to be cheating, whatever the explicit rule or rules that may or may not be involved.
Why would she be cross? There's no reason why you shouldn't take hours when playing by email.
She would presumably be cross if she had been seriously playing to win and repeatedly frustrated by my continually beating her. I'm reminded of the women athletes losing their events to men claiming to be women, except that in that case they're at least aware of the unfair advantage while they're being beaten.
My opponent had confidently and arrogantly said years before that I could never beat her at Scrabble, so she might have been chagrined by her repeated losses at Lexulous. But it turned out she was just casually playing for fun, making quick moves and not really caring whether she won or not. Indeed, she couldn't beat me if I was going to be so exhaustive about my moves, score thermometer or not. So it's better that she's indifferent about winning, perhaps mainly because this enables us to continue playing, as we have for years. One might ask whether I might not more enjoy playing against a more formidable, score-thermometer-using opponent – but as someone said here when the thermometer first appeared, it's not about your opponent anymore. You're playing less to win a game than to achieve the possible, or at least approximate it.
I think we might all benefit if Lexulous:
(a) mentioned the 'Move Strength' concept up front when people first arrive to the websiteNot a bad idea but tricky. I don't know how this could be done.
(b) added it as a clickable option which would only be used if both players agreed to by clicking before they agreed to play together.
Also a good idea, though I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to be implemented and I don't think one should. In the absence of such an option, I think it's the responsibility of the player to let his opponent know that the player has the thermometer and is using it. Otherwise I continue to think that the player may fairly be said to be cheating. This may not be 100% the player's fault, given that Lexulous provided the tool in a rather bumbling way that created the problem, but fair is fair regardless.
