Guys,
Thank you for your insightful comments.
As soon as Christian announces that he's done with his part of coding, I will download the newest level and recheck all the stuff that we have discussed so far since last week.
Efe
--- On Mon, 16/3/09, Christian Anthon <address@hidden> wrote:
From: Christian Anthon <address@hidden> Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Problems with Gnubg 04-Mar-2009 release To: "Massimiliano Maini" <address@hidden> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, "Joaquín Koifman" <address@hidden> Date: Monday, 16 March, 2009, 10:53 PM
> > I've uploaded a new version with the most recent code (20090316): I'm > not sure all the issues are gone (Christian thinks there's still something > left), but at least I can see the colors/comments in the game record as soon > as a move is made. >
I'm much closer in my own code now. Mostly a couple of hint related problems need to be solved.
> To be checked, but I'm also nuder the impression that the analysis does not > take into account the "analysis" done by the tutor. As you said, if the > tutor and analysis levels are the same, analysis is already done and, > in the past it wasn't necessary to do it again (making the analysis > at the end of the match very fast). >
Tutor and Analysis, places their results in the same list. Only one result per move is allowed.
> I think it has already been reported and, if I'm not wrong, an
easy > solution would be to sort the moves by cubeful equity and then by > cubeless equity: when all of them have cubeful equity +1.000 (or -1.000), > this should prevent odd-looking moves. Not a big deal however, the > match is already won/lost ...
No that won't help.. If all moves corresponds to "game(gammon/backgammon) won/lost" they cannot be sorted by evaluation, but need some "human" quality added to them. For example maximum number of cross-overs.
Christian. > > MaX. >
|