Talk:Microsoft Hearts

Fair use rationale for Image:HeartsVista.png

Image:HeartsVista.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HeartsVista.png

Image:HeartsVista.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved scenario.

I am kinda curious as to what would actually happen should the scenario of one person only having blood cards (point cards) on deal. I would guess the human version if the game would just allow a re-deal and nullify the hand, but computers, being so inflexible and simply running on a pre-programmed script system...? Would windows crash the game, or would it re-deal... or heaven forbid, just not allow the player to play a card from then to eternity (thus requiring a restart of the game).

Has anyone actually run into this problem, or maybe the game itself is programmed to not deal this specific hand (thus not even being random (albeit pseudo anyway) dealing the cards anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrZoolook (talk • contribs) 08:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It is possible but unlikely that this exists in the program as a bug, but I suspect that the programmers thought of this or learned about it through testing and prevent this case by checking for it after a shuffle. If I were the programmer, I would make this an easter egg and display something humorous, but I suspect that the MS programmers had no such latitude and just reshuffle instead.Jarhed (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bugs

I play Hearts with MS Windows 7 Home Premium Ver 6.1 Build 7601:Service Pack 1 For some time I have suspected that it has a bug in it. I am now sure. I just played the King of Clubs on a hand and the West player won it with a Jack of Clubs. Unfortunately, I can not document it since the poor implementation keeps no log of hands played. I find it implausible that I am the only one who has witnessed this behavior. Unfortunately, the trick is swept off the board fairly quickly after the trick so even a screenshot is very difficult to acquire. The bug is, as far as I can determine, random in nature, but possibly has to do with my clicking the left mouse button. For what its worth. I doubt if MS will be interested in such a bug173.189.74.11 (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I checked online and don't see anything listed. You have to hit the Print Screen button fast to catch bugs. I noticed bugs in the Vista version at times, but was never fast enough to catch them. Dream Focus 22:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Microsoft Hearts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080123115034/http://www.utipu.com:80/app/tip/id/398/ to http://www.utipu.com/app/tip/id/398

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Mathematics section

However obvious these results might be, I do not believe this section falls under WP:CALC, and therefore should not be included. It takes more than a few direct arithmetic calculations to arrive at them, and readers have to be able to verify the results themselves, which is nontrivial here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Why shouldn't this fall under WP:CALC?  I didn't even use a calculator.  My recollection from WT:V is that this is not pushing the limits of verifiability under WP:CALC. 

I'd support removing the claimed win rate until we have a decent source.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• I see that I responded here without knowing that you've created your own version of the article.  Your edit comment complains that the win rate, a statement with a "citation needed" tag, doesn't fall within WP:CALC.  Of course not, that is a straw man argument.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Jasper Deng: As things stand, you have deleted the entire section. You imply the results are obvious (I agree) but then you imply they are difficult to verify (I disagree). All the results are verifiable and I have supporting screenshots which I will add to the section when it is reinstated. I also have a screenshot to support my original claim that a win rate of 56%+ is achievable over a run of 100 games. A lot of community effort has been invested in this concise and well-written section. It is a beautiful, and rigorous, piece that adds significantly to the understanding of Microsoft Hearts. I disagree with your action to remove it.

@Unscintillating: Thank you for entering into this discussion. Please note: Jasper has deleted the entire Mathematics section. I trust our good reason will prevail in having the section re-instated.

@Lynton1: Please use four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each post you make on a talk page for attribution.  That is how we sign our posts.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Lynton1 (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I gave Jaspar a chance to respond, but he has disengaged for the moment.  One point he clearly wanted was to not use the win rate, something I can support.  However, for the record here on the talk page, Linton1 has told me on my talk page that he collected data over 7000 games and that the win rate was 56%.  While not a WP:RS, is still a source of information for editors to consider (see WP:Inaccuracy).
  If I thought Jaspar would object to a reasonable next edit restoring most of the section, I'd go back to the consensus version of the article first.  But he has disengaged and I kinda prefer the latest revision that mentions two of the shortest games.  So I will try restoring that version, but without the win rate.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Unscintillating, @ Jasper Deng: I have now figured out how to post images. Please refer to my screenshot as verification of an achievable win rate of 56%. I also have other screenshots illustrating other claims made in the section.

File:Microsoft Hearts - verified win rate 56%.png

56% verified win rate

Lynton1 (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the inclusion of any mathematical analysis of the game unless and until reliable sources are found that perform the analysis. There has never been a consensus that game theory falls under WP:CALC, and as I keep emphasizing, nor can the derivation be of the form "3 times 5 equals 15". Similarly, we cannot include the win rate because for all we know, that image could have been doctored (just being the devil's advocate, not saying you did), which is why user-uploaded images are not considered reliable sources. Another thing to consider is WP:DUE. If no reliable sources have reported on it, then we should not give it any weight.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• You've got some policy words, but don't seem to know how they apply.  "3 times 5 equals 15" requires nothing above high school math.  Going to the library is not original research.  Reading for meaning is not original research.  Yes, I don't support using the screenshot on the Article page, but I've already directed editor's attention to WP:Inaccuracy.  Due weight is a matter of editorial judgment.  I'm not really sure what your issue is.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I certainly do know how to apply them. If you read my comment carefully, my point is that the conclusions presented in the section are not of the form "3 times 5 equals 15". "Reading for meaning" is not a meaningful phrase, and it's besides the point that due weight is a matter of editorial judgement: my judgement as an editor is that the section is undue weight.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper: You are confused in your analysis. The section has nothing to do with Game theory. So far, the mathematical ideas are very basic (although I would personally love to see more). There is nothing controversial here. There is no slander. The facts are verifiable. The section is a serious attempt to extend knowledge in an otherwise esoteric domain. It adds a lot to the article and detracts nothing.Lynton1 (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Once again, I am not. Please do not make presumptions about what I am or what I am not, this is the second time such a supposition has been incorrect. Things like win rate, longest possible game, shortest possible game, best play, and what not are pretty much game theory. And please refrain from labelling my removal "molestation" (as implied by your use of the term "unmolested"). The facts are not verifiable by those who do not know sufficient math. It doesn't matter how long it was in the article. Wikipedia policy is what matters. Wikipedia used to be about "verifiability, not truth". --Jasper Deng (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: You have also edited this section, please chime in.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hello, Jasper. It's been a long time. I feel I am losing touch with the old guard. (Well, except FleetCommand, with whom I might not mind losing touch!)

Yes, I reverted the section once: revision 800729830. I usually revert when I see contributions that amount to patent nonsense. I cannot possibly fix these myself and a reversion is usually educational. An editor, be it Lynton1, myself or anyone else, must always preview – or at least review – his own edit. Lynton1 did not realize that his contribution is broken and is not rendered as he intended. I did.

You see, I (and nobody else) care to what extent WP:CALC is stretched as long as the explanation is clear, conscise and well-worded. (Believe me, you wouldn't.) This contribution was the opposite: I read the first paragraph, understood nothing, and run into "does provide a beautiful symmetry", which is subjective, contains peacock terms and forbidden in Wikipedia. On the top of it, I ran into a broken image. (Wikipedia does not display an image from an external source. We take the use of non-free images very seriously.) And when I load it in another tab manually, I don't see symmetry (beautiful or otherwise) but congruity. Traversing the subsequent sentences is like crossing a minefield. I run into:

• "probability unknown" (then how do you know it?)
• "citation to be provided" (in plain text)
• "Template:Citation to be provided" (broken template)
• "this is a truly beautiful scenario with an incalculable probability? Are there any super quants out there to calculate this?!" (what iritates and confuses me the most is the question mark! While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, in the case, the beholder's eye isn't certain and the beholder himself sees fit to write this incertainty multiply incertainty.)
• "In practice, a good player can achieve a win-rate of 57%+ (player vs computer over 100 games). A win rate of 56% has been verified by an addict with a continuous recorded game history exceeding 7000 games." This sentence has done a superb job of doing exactly what must NOT be done in Wikipedia, as mandated by WP:5P.

And then, Lynton1 goes ahead and counter-reverts my reversion, without an edit summary, as if I am a vandal!

Unscintillating has put up a valiant effort to restore the low quality contents but unfortunately, the quality of the result is so poor, that I am sure if Unscintillating had reviewed, he'd have rejected it.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper I have removed my reference to molestation :-). I understood Game Theory to mean "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers" (Wikipedia). As such this discussion may possibly come under Game Theory, but not the original section being discussed - which only introduces probability theory.Lynton1 (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you call it, it's not sufficiently trivial to fall under WP:CALC (and probability theory firmly doesn't, in my opinion). @Codename Lisa: I think both of us should work on toning down our comments, we shouldn't WP:BITE Lynton1.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. :)

FleetCommand warned me you might say something like that! Being gracious to newcomer becomes the most difficult when they commit a huge mistake, e.g. spend hours writing a section that runs afoul of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. When you try to tell them euphemistically, they mistake it for an attack, because they think they are (to a very good degree) right. In such cases, treating the situation is best done like ripping a band aid: Do it quick! In other words, be consice, frank, and to the point, but not obnoxious.

When Lython1 reverted me without an edit summary, I neither engaged in edit war, nor complained, nor reported him for rudeness. I wouldn't have written the complaint above if you hadn't asked me to chime in. I would have waited more and then would have broken it to him after a while.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Jaspar Deng has not been able to provide any definition of WP:CALC, so he is currently arguing from personal opinion.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Because I don't need to recite a definition that I'm using and linking to. @Unscintillating: Please stop misspelling my username (there is only one "a" in it). And I am not arguing from personal opinion: the simple fact is that as this does not fall under "basic arithmetic", per WP:V, the burden is on you (as one of those who wants to keep the content), not me, to illustrate that this is a "routine" calculation and to obtain consensus that it is an appropriate reflection of sources, which you have not. I shouldn't need to be this precise anyways. This isn't a legal argument.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• So your position is that it is correct because I am wikilawyering?  That is your position's summation?  That's not arguing with the force of reason, that is evidence that you think that your position cannot stand without adding an ad hominem.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Once again your post uses policy words such as "burden" without a sense that these are anything other than superficial arguments.  WP:Arguments to avoid discusses the problem with "just pointing at a policy".  "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

No it's not. Re-read my comment. The only thing I said about you above is "misspelling my username".--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I re-read it.  It says, bolding added, "per WP:V, the burden is on you".  Do you now agree that you used the word "burden" from WP:V?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I demonstrated very clearly how it's more than a superficial argument, by noting very precisely how those policies apply here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

• I say eliminate it. It is ridiculous, serves no purpose, and is incorrect. "A good player can achieve a win-rate of 60%". There is no way to guess how often you'd win, the cards are dealt randomly about and the game influenced by how you play yours. Someone may achieve a win rate higher than 60%. Dream Focus 05:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• The mathematical discussion should be removed from the article as WP:UNDUE because it has not been noted in multiple reliable sources. In addition, while it is conceivable that WP:CALC could cover some of the conclusions, WP:CALC is not intended to cover unpublished observations of the type in the proposed text. Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
• I also have a screenshot to support my original claim pretty much sums it up. Blackguard 07:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Minor edit

Jasper Deng has restored his version of the article with a "minor" edit, in a context in which a minor edit is used to designate vandalism.  Like all of his edits to the article, he only posts his preferred version.  He doesn't have another version of the article he claims is a better baseline version to define the consensus version.  In the edit comment, he claims that a page that was untouched for over three months "never had consensus".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I used Twinkle, which I did not know does that by default. If I had reverted manually, I definitely would not have done that. You can't reasonably expect me to keep up with every change in the implementation of Twinkle.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)