barmar said:
"Unfortunately, none of us are AI programmers. We're going to have to tread very carefully if we're thinking of changing basic design of GIB.
Also, there's an enormous rulebase that's tied to its current evaluation methods. If we make a radical change to the GIB engine, we'll have to go through thousands of rules, adjusting them to work with the new evaluation method."
Then it is perhaps simpler and cheaper in the long run to purchase/licence another bridge playing and bidding software program that works on sensible principles not simulations. This would be easier and less expensive to enhance and fix as a result. And the starting point would be better than where we are now.
May God have mercy on the soul of GIB/BBOL while you continue to flog a dead horse.
calm01
Freaky strong
#22
Posted 2011-November-09, 04:19
We're aware that there are a number of ways to skin this cat, and nothing is ruled out. But for the moment, we only have one horse to flog, and its name is GIB.
BTW, you seem to be the only one who uses the abbreviation BBOL instead of BBO. It took me a moment to figure out what the "L" stood for the first time I saw it.
BTW, you seem to be the only one who uses the abbreviation BBOL instead of BBO. It took me a moment to figure out what the "L" stood for the first time I saw it.