Re: [Bug-gnubg] Analyse / Rollout - do we need it?

[Ian Shaw]

Seconded! I was just about to suggest this when I saw Max's post.

-- Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Massimiliano Maini
Sent: 16 October 2011 18:34
To: Philippe Michel
Cc: gnubg-list
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Analyse / Rollout - do we need it?

doubtful/bad/very bad decisions could be "Flagged" moves, leaving "Marked" for 
user selected moves.

Max.

On 14 October 2011 20:34, Philippe Michel <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Michael Petch wrote:
>
>> On 14/10/2011 4:07 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
>
>>> 2) Why is "Cmark" called "Cmark" and not simply "Mark"?  What 
>>> information does the "C" convey?
>
>> I was curious about this naming convention as well. It has confused 
>> some people in the past. They thought CMARK was to mark cubes. Simply 
>> going with "Mark" makes sense to me.
>
> "Mark" is somehow already used for for the doubtful/bad/very bad decisions.
> See the red arrows vs. blue arrows in the GUI.
>
> "CMark" is still not very expressive, of course.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
>

_______________________________________________
Bug-gnubg mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg