Re: [Bug-gnubg] Alternate method for "Good" moves

[Joseph Heled]

Perhaps, but right now the marking is done according to the current 
analysis and nothing more. I don't think I am going to change that right 
now. The only change I did was to replace "unmarked moves" - which were 
"unmarked + analyzed as good" with "true" unmarked and good. I thought 
you are not happy with the inclusion of forced moves with the good ones?

-Joseph


Albert Silver wrote:
> Good or Very Good usually imply the move was less than obvious. If one
> agree to this, then how about if a player finds a move that 0-ply
> disagreed with, but that 2-ply agreed with (showing it was less than
> obvious as 0-ply didn't find it either), it is marked as a Good Move.
> And if the move is considerably better than what 0-ply had initially
> planned it will be classified as Very Good. Ex:
>
> 31 - Player plays 8/5* 6/5
> 0-ply says it is a 0.030 mistake and one must play 13/9.
> 2-ply reverts this and says 8/5 6/5 is best. 
> If the equity difference, according to 2-ply, is better by 0.001 to
> 0.030, it is a "Good Move", and if it is better by 0.30 or up it is a
> "Very Good" move. This would apply to any deeper analysis disproving a
> previous verdict. 
>
> So if I run a 3-ply that puts my move ahead of the 2-ply before it, it
> can change the classification of my move and make it a Very Good move
> when it wasn't before. Or if a rollout agrees with my move over the
> prevous 2-ply, then my move again is either called a "Good Move" or a
> "Very Good Move".
>
> 						Albert 
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joseph Heled [mailto:address@hidden
> > Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 11:52 PM
> > To: gnubg
> > Cc: Albert Silver
> > Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Marked good
> >
> > I took the simplistic approach that "good is anything that is not
>
> bad",
>
> > which includes forced and can't move.
> >
> > If you guys figure out another consistent and natural counting method,
>
> I
>
> > will give it a look.
> >
> > -Joseph
> >
> > N.B implementation-wise it is sometimes not trivial - since you can
> > figure out the 'can't move' without analysis, but 'forced move'
>
> requires
>
> > analysis at the moment. And currently we can have the case that only
> > part of the match is analyzed.
> >
> > Albert Silver wrote:
> >
> > > Forced moves are marked "Good"?
> > >
> > >                                Silverwind           You
> > >
> > > Checkerplay statistics:
> > >
> > > Total moves                     110                  111
> > >
> > > Unforced moves                  92                   82
> > >
> > > Moves unmarked                  0                    0
> > >
> > > Moves marked good               84                   92
> > >
> > >                                                 Albert
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg