RE: [Bug-gnubg] Alternate method for "Good" moves

[Albert Silver]

> Perhaps, but right now the marking is done according to the current
> analysis and nothing more. I don't think I am going to change that
right
> now. The only change I did was to replace "unmarked moves" - which
were
> "unmarked + analyzed as good" with "true" unmarked and good. I thought
> you are not happy with the inclusion of forced moves with the good
ones?
> 
> -Joseph

I wasn't, and my proposed way of analyzing Good moves required using
only unforced moves because only unforced moves are analyzed deeper than
0-ply.

                                                Albert

> Albert Silver wrote:
> > Good or Very Good usually imply the move was less than obvious. If
one
> > agree to this, then how about if a player finds a move that 0-ply
> > disagreed with, but that 2-ply agreed with (showing it was less than
> > obvious as 0-ply didn't find it either), it is marked as a Good
Move.
> > And if the move is considerably better than what 0-ply had initially
> > planned it will be classified as Very Good. Ex:
> >
> > 31 - Player plays 8/5* 6/5
> > 0-ply says it is a 0.030 mistake and one must play 13/9.
> > 2-ply reverts this and says 8/5 6/5 is best.
> > If the equity difference, according to 2-ply, is better by 0.001 to
> > 0.030, it is a "Good Move", and if it is better by 0.30 or up it is
a
> > "Very Good" move. This would apply to any deeper analysis disproving
a
> > previous verdict.
> >
> > So if I run a 3-ply that puts my move ahead of the 2-ply before it,
it
> > can change the classification of my move and make it a Very Good
move
> > when it wasn't before. Or if a rollout agrees with my move over the
> > prevous 2-ply, then my move again is either called a "Good Move" or
a
> > "Very Good Move".
> >
> >                                             Albert