I play backgammon against a computer game a lot. One function of the game is to evaluate how well you play. The evaluation ranges from "awful" to "supernatural." Part of the evaluation also shows how good or bad your luck and the computer's luck was, ranging from "bad dice, man" to "go to Vegas."Often, though, I get a strange evaluation. I might destroy the computer with a score of 8-0 or more (though this is rare) and I get a player evaluation of "average" or "casual", while the computer is set at "supernatural." But the luck factor is almost always "none," meaning neither side had particularly good or bad luck.I don't understand this. If I'm an average or casual player and the computer is set at supernatural, I should win only if I have good luck and/or the computer has bad luck.I have noticed that when the computer is in tutoring mode (it alerts you if you're going to make what it considers a bad move), it tells me to make a move that's clearly idiotic, such as leaving two blots in your home base when the computer has a blot on the bar. The computer is probably looking purely at odds and computing that the odds of me being blotted are higher than other moves being a problem. (?)Most of the time when the computer points out a bad move, it's right, but it does have some strange ideas about poor strategy.Anyway, the program is quirky but a good player. I just wonder at its evaluation methods. 

comments