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.
>
|