Why things work the way they do: a) it is desirable to analyse the computer player as you go along, so as not to waste time during analysis after the game. b) it is desirable to keep the analysis and the annotation in sync. c) a double/no double analysis has to include a take/pass analysis to get the right action d) the take analysis belong with the double analysis so as not to waste time
For the computer the following is done before roll: a 0-ply assessment of our position in the double window. If this is false no further double analysis is done, if true a full n-ply double/no double // take/drop analysis is done. after roll: luck determination For the human player analysis is only done when the tutor is on. So what get's annotated when tutor is off is A1) computer luck A2) computer errors if the decision differs from a stored evaluation B) player take/pass decisions (annotated, but not interrupted) B1) Any decision where analysis is stored. That is if you for example do hint on a chequer move and still choose an inferior move, it gets annotated, but not interrupted. What has been changed is b) What I suggest when tutor is off: a) not doing luck analysis b) not storing the double analysis obtained from the computer move It will cost a bit of time when analysing, but should otherwise be ok. Christian. On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Massimiliano Maini < [email protected]> wrote: > > Hmm ... I may agree for take/drops: if you're playing gnubg and he has > doubled, he knows > the equities for no double and double/take, hence the analysis is already > done (this > under the assumption that gnubg playing level is the same as the analysis > level, e.g. > both at World Class, otherwise this won't be correct). > > But I'm not sure about luck: luck would require analysis (at the specified > level). > Is this really done on the fly ? I thought it was done only during analysis > ... > > MaX. > > [email protected] wrote on > 04/05/2009 23:31:10: > > > > I guess I didn't read your message too carefully the first time. > > Take/drops (and Luck I believe) are analysed as you go along when > > playing a computer opponent. Probably wasn't marked in previous > > versions. It doesn't take much if any time. Confusing, possibly. > > Desired, unknown. > > > > Christian. > > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Zulli, Louis P <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I moved away my gnubgautorc. It still happened when I accepted a > > double in this position: u90GAALzPQ8AAA:AgEAAIABAAAA > > > > Louis > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Christian Anthon" <[email protected]> > > To: "Louis P Zulli" <[email protected]> > > Cc: "bug-gnubg" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, May 4, 2009 4:58:30 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > > Subject: Re: New gnubg oddity? > > > > I'm not really sure why or when this would happen. Can you tell me > > if this happens with a clean gnubgautorc file, when the problem appeared, > etc. > > > > Christian. > > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Zulli, Louis P <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I built from the 20090502 snapshot. I'm seeing a behavior that I > > don't recall seeing before. gnubg is putting analysis highlighting > > and ?? on certain plays in the game record as they occur. For > > example, if I take a double and gnubg deems my decision "very bad," > > the move appears with ?? and highlighted in yellow. This happens > > during the game, before I request any analysis. "Very lucky" rolls > > also appear in bold face as they occur. > > > > Is this new? Is anyone else seeing this? > > > > Louis > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bug-gnubg mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg >
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
