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 <[email protected]> wrote: From: Christian Anthon <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Problems with Gnubg 04-Mar-2009 release To: "Massimiliano Maini" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], "Joaquín Koifman" <[email protected]> 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. >
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
