Hi Stefano, Sorry about the long, long delay in getting back to this.
Stefano Zacchiroli <z...@debian.org> writes: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 08:08:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> I think I may be missing something here, but what semantics do you >> believe ending the current game in the middle of a match should have? >> Off-hand, that doesn't seem like a sensible action to me, since >> wouldn't it then leave the match status in an undefined state? >> Or, put another way, why would you use end game rather than resign? > The semantics is indeed a bit confused, at least in my mind; I don't > exclude that a proper solution for this bug would be improved > documentation of what "end game" is supposed to do --- I didn't find any > in the doc. > So, first of all, whereas resigning implies that you lose, "end game" > does not. Using "end game" it's the AI that will play in your stead > until the end of the current game. So you can also win. > I believe the intended use case is that you use to quickly terminate a > game, if you are at present not interested in playing, say, the bear off > phase. But if you're ahead in that specific game, you do expect > (statistically) to win that game. If that happens in, say, the first > game of a match to be played at 11-points, you do expect to be able to > play yourself the subsequent games. It is this that seems to be > impossible, and it smells like a software bug (something like: > triggering the boolean "match ended" instead of the boolean "game ended" > once done). Ah, I see, yes. I should have actually tried this before I responded to your original message, since after having actually done this in a game, the problem is obvious. I'll report this upstream and see what they say. I suspect you're right that it's a bug in the game status tracking. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
