I know you consider this to be text book black and white that ³if you drag directly to the end position² that pick and pass should never be selected. I disagree.
Lets assume the bot does what you say in all cases. What if you are trying to save backgammon. You have a piece on the 24 point, no men taken off (But your house has a prime) and you opponent opened up and left his last checker on the 23 point. You roll 2-1 and you drag the mouse from 24 to 21. Tell me, when the bot jumps over because it won¹t hit, I think its reasonable for someone to complain that ³Intent is clear, the bot should know I will save backgammon and hit². A persons expectations may not be the same given all circumstances. They might believe the bot should smart enough to recognize that the intent was to save backgammon. And I will quote from you ³we should strive to have a parsing scheme that is as intuitive as possible² So in my case I believe its intuitive to assume the bot should know full well that this is a hitting play. For it to choose any other play would be counter intuitive, at least from the perspective of the person who made the play. I think it could be argued that there are likely more positions where the intuitive thing to do is to hit, rather than pass. In the end, I¹d still be happy with the bot just making the first play it found to be legal to get from position A to B. On 09/04/09 2:05 PM, "Zulli, Louis P" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > There is currently some "parsing" of "user checker actions on the gtk-board" > to yield "actual backgammon moves." For example, my continuous checker slide > from 6 to 3 was parsed as 6/5*/3 rather than 6/4/3. Even though a user can > readily undo and redo a move, we should strive to have a parsing scheme that > is as intuitive as possible. Perhaps I am atypical, but parsing my action as > 6/5*3 is counter-intuitive. Philippe's suggestion that a continuous slide like > mine never be parsed as pick and pass makes sense to me. Ideally, parsing of > actions should not simply default to "pick the first legal interpretation" of > the action based on some arbitrarily ordered list of legal interpretations. > > Of course this is a small issue, but it seems like the kind of issue that > should be discussed before any "official" release. > > Louis >
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
