Yes and No. I happened to say "Simulated", I should have said
"Simulated in X11". Many GTK X11 Apps and Control-Click don't always
conform to the Desktop standards of the OS/X environment.
In Gnubg (X11 App) I have always had to use "Option-Click" to get the
"Equivalent" right mouse click on the corresponding Win32 Gnubg
Application. On my desktop I have to use the normal "Control-Click" to
get the context menus (which are are generally associated with right
mouse click) as you suggest.
As well, something that hasn't been mentioned is that you may also
have to enable "Three button mouse" support in X11 for GnuBG to
understand Alt and Option mouse click. When X11 is launched the X11
system menu has a preferences menu Item. Select Input tab, and enable
"Three Button Mouse".
For GnuBG on X11 with MAC OS/X I should say "Enable X11 Three Button
Mouse support" and use the "Option Button" to get the equivalent
functionality that Right Mouse click gives you under Win32 environments.
X11 "integration" on the MAC desktop is very poor.
On 6-Apr-10, at 9:21 PM, Richard Buckle wrote:
Tsk, I hate it when ppl give incorrect answers. Right click on a Mac
with a single-button mouse is done by Ctrl-click, /not/ Option-click.
Also, you can plug any old USB mouse into a Mac and it'll see your
right-clicks, scroll wheel etc just fine.
Richard.
On 5 Apr 2010, at 19:02, Michael Petch wrote:
On the Mac, right mouse click is simulated by holding the "Option"
on a single button mouse while clicking. This should work in GnuBG
as well (It does here)
On 5-Apr-10, at 11:23 AM, Øystein Johansen wrote:
I'm not a Mac user myself, so I do not know. I'm forwarding this
to the mailing list. (I guess you forgot to add a cc.)
-Øystein
2010/4/5 Julian Wilson <[email protected]>
hello
Can anyone help me with what I suspect is a stupid question.
I'm a new GNU user and use a MAC.
I cannot seem to set up a position. My windows friends say that
this is because I do not have a right click mouse....
I'm sure there must be a workround/alternative for mac.
Thanks in anticipation.
On 3 Apr 2010, at 20:03, Øystein Johansen wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for your effort. The difference in strength between 0-ply
and 2-ply is significant, but not so much stronger that it is
possible to make a clear statement after 10 games. I suggests you
play 100.000 games and then report the result.
I've done such experiments my self, and I can assure you that 2-
ply is stronger than 0-ply. You can take my word for it, or you
can extend your experiment. :-)
Thanks anyway!
-Øystein
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:50 PM, tocy <[email protected]> wrote:
i made an experiment and let the computer play against computer
with gnubg
program, one side played with "ply-0" level and one side played
with "ply-2"
level,
guess who kept win again and again about 10 times or more?the
side who
played with level "ply-0",
how is that possible?
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/computer-vs.-computer-tp28128791p28128791.html
Sent from the Gnu - Backgammon mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
