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

[Holger]

At 16:19 02.10.2003, Jim Segrave wrote:
> On Thu 02 Oct 2003 (14:17 +0200), address@hidden wrote:
> >
> >        GWC |         DP        S1         CP        S2        TG        |
> > ACTION     |         |         |          |         |         |         |
> > -----------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|---------|
> >            |         |         |          |         |         |         |
> > DOUBLE     |   WADP  |    //   |    //    |    //   |    //   |   WATG  |
> >            |         |         |          |         |         |         |
> > NO DOUBLE  |    //   |   MADP  |   MACP   |   MACP  |   MATG  |    //   |
> >            |         |         |          |         |         |         |
> > -----------|---------|---------|----------|---------|---------|---------|
> >
> > WA -> Wrong Aound, MA -> Missed Around
> >
> > Now what you're saying is that a MACP is either a MADP or a MATG (taking
> > the arithmetic mean of DP and TG as separation point, old logic).
> > Personally I don't see anything wrong with the current classification, it
> > simply gives a bit more of information that the one you propose (i.e. the
> > old one).
> > If you carry on playing knowing you are between CP and TG, you are wrong
> > and the fact you think you are above TG is not a good reason to classify
> > the missed double as "around TG".
>
> I agree, I think being told that you should have doubled near the DP,
> CP or TG is additional useful information - it gives you feedback on
> whether you completely mis-read the situation (thinking you were under
> the cash point when you had almost crossed the TG point for example)
>
> > Following your reasoning, a player that doesn't double when he's slightly
> > above DP and largerly below TG should have his mistake classified as 
> "missed
> > around TG" simply because he thought he was above TG.
> >
> > As a totally minor detail, I would change the displayed text to something
> > like :
> >
> >      Wrong double  (below DP)
> >      Wrong double  (above TG)
> >      Missed double (above DP)
> >      Missed double (around CP)
> >      Missed double (below TG)
>
> And I agree that's clearer as well. You could even go further to say
> Missed double (below CP) and
> Missed double (above CP)

Do you want to split "Missed double (around CP)" into two categories 
(making it 4) or combine the 3 missed doubles to 2?

> > One thing I can't figure out is what happens when TG is below DP.
> > This may happen in match play, playing for an undoubled gammon (e.g.
> > at -2,-4 with significative gammon chances, as Joern pointed out in
> > a previous thread on the subject).
>
> Let's see what orderings are possible:
>
> DP  <= CP  <= TG - normal, as above
> DP  <= TG  <  CP - can't happen, by definition of TG
> CP  <  DP  <= TG - can't happen CP must be >= DP
> CP  <  TG  <= DP - can't happen, as above
> TG  <= CP  <  DP - can't happen, as above
> TG  <  DP  <= CP - all doubles are wrong, all no-doubles are right
>
> So the only extra requirement is that the first test is that if a
> double is offered, you are below the TG point, if not it's a
>
>  Wrong double  (above TG)

A test for TG < DP is necessary so it doesn't fall into the normal case.

> > Assuming the CP will still be above the DP, the CP/TG separator (S2)
> > will no longer have sense and you will need a new separator between TG
> > and DP (the order being now TG -- DP -- CP). I don't know if the
> > currently implemented logic does this or not.
>
> With the above test, this is no longer relevant.

> What I'd love to see added is a change to the graphs so that rather
> than being bar graphs, the areas became trapezoids with the top of the
> graph being the fully live cube values and the bottom being the dead
> cube values
>
>       live
> ________________________________
>           \       /       |
>   ND       \ DT  /   DP   | TG
>             \   /         |
> --------------------------------
>       dead
>
> I don't know if this is possible with GTK, but I think it very nice.

That's a good idea. But I neither know what could be done with GTK+. 
Alternatively, one would have to draw a graphics, maybe with LibArt.

Regards,

        Holger