TheCat wrote:
How does providing predictions of where pieces can end up remove "eliminating intuitively the more unlikely ones"?
The keyword is intuitively here. You (human being) cannot simply parse all the 256 possibilities. If you are willing to go to depth 2 (the next two moves), the possibilities become more than 64000...
The same thing happens in chess: the difficulty is not in figuring out how the knight moves (as you correctly say) but in deciding not to even look at where that knight might move to, because it just isn't worth the fuss.
Computer algorithms in chess, on the other hand, heavily rely on the computer's ability to thoroughly look for every stupid move allowed, thanks to the computer's speed. Better algorithms make educated guesses as to which moves the computer should analyse first of course, but eventually all moves allowed will be parsed (to a given depth).
So what you ask for is a bit like getting to use a computer to parse all possible moves.
Why do you accept that the game offers predictions for your own pieces? Surely, by your logic, that's providing unnecessary assistance, right?
The game does not offer a prediction, but a preview. Most of us have trouble telling the difference between "clockwise" and "counterclockwise" --- think of all the wrong reports regarding supposed "tailing bugs" which are just due to our difficulty in telling left from right when a plane points downward!
So I might decide that the best move is "wolf to man, clockwise", and then just click on the wrong buttons. This is not (in my opinion) a help in parsing all possible moves, just a help to prevent "typos" in submitting the orders, which make the game more enjoyable for everyone.
I do respect your opinion, of course 
neko |
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
