RE: [Bug-gnubg] miscellaneous bugs and suggestions

[Ian Shaw]

> > - maybe the "noise" settings could disappear from the GUI? 
> Some users seem 
> > to be confused about this and the few(?) people using it 
> might have little 
> > problems using the text command?
> 
> Noise is used for the settings lower than Expert.
> 
I vote to keep the noise settings, although I'd like the < expert settings
to disappear from analysis and rollout listings.

My 8-yr old daughter plays against GnuBg and even on the max noise settings
it is still too strong for her. I'd like GnuBg to be able to play even worse
so she gets the encouragement of winning more often.(She loves the new tutor
mode BTW.)


> 
> > - just wondering, is it clear to any (native) English 
> speakers that a 
> > "novice" is a better player than a "beginner", as by 
> GNUBG's ratings?
> 
> Can't answer that one. My English - Danish dictionary 
> translates novice
> and beginner to the same word :-)
> 
[snip]
>> or (my preference)
>> beginner->novice
>> novice->student

> Sounds fine to me. Any objections?

> He he, I'm actually tempted to add the "pseudo-random play" rating if the
> error rate is below, say, 0.060...  Would anyone object to that? I'll of
> course give David the credit (and blame) when get offended by gnubg
> rating their play as pseudo-random :-)

I'm a native English speaker, born and bred on this fair isle, so I guess I
qualify to comment here.

Beginner and novice at first reading are the same. If you think about it a
bit harder then I think there is slightly more expertise in novice (monastic
orders spring to mind).

I like the novice->student conversion, but I prefer "beginner" to remain as
is. People who are beginners (e.g. kids) are more likely to understand this
term than "novice", which is slightly more obscure.

Another alternative would be novice->basic.

 beginner - basic  - intermediate - advanced - expert - world class
 beginner - student - intermediate - advanced - expert - world class

Finally, whilst I appreciate the humour of pseudo-random, but those likely
to get that rating might not. It assumes a certain amount of
computer/mathematical literacy. Perhaps you should just bite the bullet and
say awful! (exclamation mark included).

Ian