bug-gnubg
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Wrong cube errors categories in analysis statist


From: Holger
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Wrong cube errors categories in analysis statistics panel
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:52:53 +0200

At 16:19 02.10.2003, address@hidden wrote:
In fact, I've just found another reasonable classification.
That's the current one (with slightly clearer text, I think) :

     Wrong double  (below DP)
     Wrong double  (above TG)
     Missed double (above DP) (around DP in GNUbg)
     Missed double (around CP)     (around CP in GNUbg)
     Missed double (below TG) (arounf TG in GNUbg)

That's the last one I came up with :

     Wrong double  (below DP)
     Wrong double  (above TG)
     Missed double (below CP)   (and above DP, that's implicit)
     Missed double (above CP)   (and below TG, that's implicit)

Possible, but it would change the logic of course. I think CP happens to be often equal to TG so this would make the last category empty in some/many cases.

In fact, when you miss below CP, it was a Double/Take, when you miss above
CP it was a Double/Pass. This classification has 2 advantages :

1) 2 Missed catagories instead of 3 : should be easier to handle
   exotic cases (like TG<DP), since there's only one separator
   (CP) and CP is always above DP (right ?).

2) It tells you what the opponent should have done (take/pass),
   which is probably the only meaningful information.
   Many beginners (and some intermediate to advanced) players
   will notice that they miss much more double/take than double/pass.

So my final suggestion for double classification (at least for today) is :

     Wrong double  (below DP)
     Wrong double  (above TG)
     Missed double (below CP) or Missed double/take (below CP)
     Missed double (above CP) or Missed double/pass (above CP)

On which categorization is the better one I'll have to rely on the experts. So please come to an agreement and I'll implement this. :-)

Regards,

Holger




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]