|Subject:||Re: [Bug-gnubg] Handling ambiguous checker moves|
|Date:||Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:19:13 +0000 (GMT)|
Hi Mike, Philippe, Louis and all,
I have been following your interesting discussion quietly in background for the last 2 days :)
Eventually I also wanted to share my opinions about the topic.
Personally, I was quite happy about Gnubg pick-n-pass'ing the blots in such moves, since like Michael indicated before, in most of these positions the hitting is the correct way, barring some exceptions.
In addition, I had also some instances where there were actually TWO blots apart that could BOTH be hit one after the other with the roll available at hand. Sometimes, due to lack of concentration, I would only see the hit involving the further distanced blot and use the full roll to hit that one with a mouse drag. In such cases, I would be gladly surprised when I saw two blots sent to the bar by Gnubg (which was the correct play anyway). So Gnubg would compensate for my error of not seeing the closer blot and would act in my favor by performing the double hit. Hence, I had no complaints against this feature :))
But to be honest and objective, like Philippe indicated in his mail before, no serious opponent in real life would point out your mistake if you do not put the hit checker on the bar yourself. He will just stay silent and be quite happy that you forgot something. Therefore, eventhough I like Gnubg's current setup, it may not exactly be simulating real life...
Finally, just to add some spice and feedback to the discussion: I also have a copy of Frank Berger's BG Blitz. When reading about this discussion, I was curious as to how his program was handling similar drag'n'drops and went ahead to do some trials.
BG Blitz actually does not even allow you drag'n'drop to the final destination at all if there is a potential hit involved somewhere between (also goes for the double hits I gave as an example above). So you have to explicitly use the right or left mouse buttons to exactly show the program what you intend to play. Maybe someone amongst us can also give some feedback on Snowie's approach?
Of course, some may even argue whether this is the correct approach. Because: When I cannot directly slide a checker to a final point, I then realize that I am missing something which forces me to think twice. So I do not commit any serious mistakes by overlooking any plays (which is again not depicting real life!).
Eventually, it is up to the Gnubg developers how they want to setup this feature and I am happy whatever way they choose.
Although I may dislike it first due to my current Gnubg habits, the cruelest, harshest, but probably most correct way is Gnubg NOT HITTING in such "ambiguous" positions AT ALL and let the player "earn the hit" if and when he actually sees the shot and explicitly plays it out.
--- On Thu, 9/4/09, Michael Petch <address@hidden> wrote:
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|