'Move Strength' - details please
-
Dear Lexulous
The 'Move Strength' is very useful and interesting. I think we would all be grateful if you could provide us with some details of how it is derived. Clearly the algorithm is based on the letters available to the player as well as those on the board. However it is not clear to players if any weight is given to the possible replies made by their opponent for each possible word that (s)he might play.
I would be content if you simply acknowledged that this is not done. - but if this is the whole story then it can be a very misleading datum when playing the game. For example, inexperienced players might unthinkingly accept the 'move strength' percentage as the whole story and never learn to avoid gifting 'hooks' to their opponents.
I would be content if you simply acknowledged that this is not done, possibly at the 'Try a game with Lex Robot' stage or, better as a 'mouse over' message during the game.
@mistertoad Thank you for sharing your feedback. We will forward your suggestion to our development team.
-
@betterlate1-0 said "why not just play and figure it out?"
I played, I figured it out OK, I posted (to paraphrase a well known quotation).
As I said in my post, I want Lexulous to acknowledge that 'Move Strength' is kinda limited so that newcomers do not "unthinkingly accept the 'move strength' percentage as the whole story" when it is not.
@mistertoad it would be astonishing to me if anyone assumed that "Move Strength" equated to "the best possible move after analyzing all possible permutations of the game ahead." Then again, perhaps some do.
-
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.
