[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Holger
Subject: Re: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Wrong cube errors categories in analysis statistics panel
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:40:22 +0200

At 12:46 02.10.2003, address@hidden wrote:
Just to clarify (I'm putting Jim's explanation in a more readable format,
provided you have a wide enough screen), this is what (I think) it is
done now :

Your ASCII graphic didn't come through aligned, so here is a reformatted one (btw, for viewing with a fixed width font):

           |GWC:  DP     S1     CP     S2     TG     |
ACTION     |      |      |      |      |      |      |
           |      |      |      |      |      |      |
DOUBLE     | WADP        |    (WACP)   |        WATG |
           |      |      |      |      |      |      |
NON DOUBLE |        MADP |     MACP    | MATG        |
           |      |      |      |      |      |      |

S1 = (DP + CP) / 2                  S2 = (CP + TG) / 2

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).

I agree.

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)

Sure, that's easy.

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).
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.

No, it doesn't yet. But it's not difficult to calculate a 3rd separator, which will be used when TG < DP.



reply via email to

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