Re: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Wrong cube errors categories in analysis statistics panel

[Holger]

At 12:46 02.10.2003, address@hidden wrote:
> Just to clarify (I'm putting Jim's explanation in a more readable format,
> provided you have a wide enough screen), this is what (I think) it is
> done now :

Your ASCII graphic didn't come through aligned, so here is a reformatted 
one (btw, for viewing with a fixed width font):

           |GWC:  DP     S1     CP     S2     TG     |
ACTION     |      |      |      |      |      |      |
-----------|------|------|------|------|------|------|
           |      |      |      |      |      |      |
DOUBLE     | WADP        |    (WACP)   |        WATG |
           |      |      |      |      |      |      |
NON DOUBLE |        MADP |     MACP    | MATG        |
           |      |      |      |      |      |      |
-----------|------|------|------|------|------|------|

S1 = (DP + CP) / 2                  S2 = (CP + TG) / 2

> WA -> Wrong Aound, MA -> Missed Around
>
> Now what you're saying is that a MACP is either a MADP or a MATG (taking
> the arithmetic mean of DP and TG as separation point, old logic).
> Personally I don't see anything wrong with the current classification, it
> simply gives a bit more of information that the one you propose (i.e. the
> old one).

I agree.

> As a totally minor detail, I would change the displayed text to something
> like :
>
>      Wrong double  (below DP)
>      Wrong double  (above TG)
>      Missed double (above DP)
>      Missed double (around CP)
>      Missed double (below TG)

Sure, that's easy.

> One thing I can't figure out is what happens when TG is below DP.
> This may happen in match play, playing for an undoubled gammon (e.g.
> at -2,-4 with significative gammon chances, as Joern pointed out in
> a previous thread on the subject).
> Assuming the CP will still be above the DP, the CP/TG separator (S2)
> will no longer have sense and you will need a new separator between TG
> and DP (the order being now TG -- DP -- CP). I don't know if the
> currently implemented logic does this or not.

No, it doesn't yet. But it's not difficult to calculate a 3rd separator, 
which will be used when TG < DP.

Regards,

        Holger