I think it was sometime in May I decided to see just how good of a Hearts player I was. I've had the game on this and my last few computers, but until I got this PC and game, I never did very well. I can't remember if this game came with the computer or I had to download it (it came with my last couple of computers) but I certainly like this version best of all I've played.
So, I decided I'd get a large enough sample of games to be significant and figured a hundred would be good enough. As you can see by the screen shot below, I did fairly well, winning nearly half the games. I had started a few games, then got discouraged or had to do something, so when I closed the program, it counts the game as a loss. I don't know if I would have won those games or not - probably not, because some of them started out badly, catching the queen right off the bat several hands in a row.
Still, I'm fairly proud to have done so well. In the other Hearts programs, I very seldom won, hardly ever over 25% of the time. That's probably about right for a novice Hearts player such as myself. Still, it seemed as though my three computer opponents "ganged up" on me. I know it's programming, but I couldn't help but think of the computer players as "real"...but "real" players wouldn't have taken the cursing I gave them like I did my computer opponents. (named Huey, Dewey and Louie)
My better play can also be attributed to my better remembering the cards that have been played, which is one of the most important strategies of Hearts but I also think this version of the game is more "fair". With this version, the other players will seem to try to keep one of them - and me- from "shooting the moon" and winning all the tricks. With the previous games, it seemed as though I was the only one trying to prevent it.
Now, you may think a blog post about a computer cards game might be silly and you might think I don't have a life posting about it and playing so many games of Hearts. You'd be right thinking both. Need proof?
Previous post about Hearts and another and another
So, I decided I'd get a large enough sample of games to be significant and figured a hundred would be good enough. As you can see by the screen shot below, I did fairly well, winning nearly half the games. I had started a few games, then got discouraged or had to do something, so when I closed the program, it counts the game as a loss. I don't know if I would have won those games or not - probably not, because some of them started out badly, catching the queen right off the bat several hands in a row.
Still, I'm fairly proud to have done so well. In the other Hearts programs, I very seldom won, hardly ever over 25% of the time. That's probably about right for a novice Hearts player such as myself. Still, it seemed as though my three computer opponents "ganged up" on me. I know it's programming, but I couldn't help but think of the computer players as "real"...but "real" players wouldn't have taken the cursing I gave them like I did my computer opponents. (named Huey, Dewey and Louie)
My better play can also be attributed to my better remembering the cards that have been played, which is one of the most important strategies of Hearts but I also think this version of the game is more "fair". With this version, the other players will seem to try to keep one of them - and me- from "shooting the moon" and winning all the tricks. With the previous games, it seemed as though I was the only one trying to prevent it.
Now, you may think a blog post about a computer cards game might be silly and you might think I don't have a life posting about it and playing so many games of Hearts. You'd be right thinking both. Need proof?
Previous post about Hearts and another and another
No comments:
Post a Comment