| Player 1 |
|
#player1 Mike Mike
#player2 John John
#description Saved by Elise version 0.0.7
>Mike: ABCIRRV 8D BRAVI +26 26
>John: AAY E8 .AYA +14 14
>Mike: BCEORRT F7 C.ROB +24 50
>John: ARW D11 WAR +20 34
>Mike: EEERTVY 14B VEERY +45 95
#note Taking care not to make the same mistake as two games ago!
>John: AQT 7H QAT +24 58
>Mike: EEFIIOT 6I FIE +17 112
#note 3-ply winprob simulation (4360), +10.15 / 63.8% [108.86s]
>John: EKM C12 ME.K +28 86
>Mike: AEGGIOT 15F AGOG +23 135
#note Or AGGIE. I prefer this for defensive purposes, though.
>John: DIMOU 5K DUOMI +22 108
>Mike: EEEINOT N1 TONE.E +20 155
#note Looks ugly, but there's nothing better.
>John: HIS 1L HI.S +33 141
>Mike: DEIIILN -IIL +0 155
#note One thing I'm noticing as a trend as I analyze these games is that I'm exchanging a little bit too readily. Elise says LINED O4 is best by a huge margin; I'm going to dispute that. Quackle's top choices are LININ 3J (didn't see it) or INDIE O5, both of which I think I can live with.
>John: NU 3L NU. +6 147
>Mike: DEEIINR O4 D.NER +31 186
#note INDIE again. Elise thinks my play is closer to the mark than Quackle does.
>John: ALNRS 9H SNARL +18 165
>Mike: CEIINPT L8 C.IPT +24 210
#note Quackle prefers PELITIC in this spot; Elise prefers my play. I'm open to suggestions.
>John: EX 10I EX +52 217
>Mike: EEHIJNO 2J JOE +32 242
#note 3-ply winprob simulation (2040), -3.53 / 60.4% [90.73s]
>John: AF 7C FA +13 230
>Mike: EHILNOT 6B HOLT +25 267
>John: TU J2 .UT +10 240
>Mike: ?EILNPS N8 aLPINES +79 346
>John: IL E4 LI. +6 246
>Mike: ?DIOOUW C4 WO.. +10 356
#note Elise comes up with some 3/1000 chance that this loses (which Quackle overlooks). I'll take my chances.
>John: AINST O11 SATIN +27 273
>Mike: ?DEIOUZ K11 OUZEl +36 392
#note Quackle thinks DUMA 12A is best; it's second choice, ZEIn 2F, tops Elise's evaluation.
>John: DEG F3 GED +10 283
>John: DEG -- -10 273
#note Huh. Okay then.
>Mike: DI 4C .I.D +16 408
>Mike: (DEG) +10 418
|
