[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Bug-gnubg] Feature Request: Differential reporting of rolloutresult
RE: [Bug-gnubg] Feature Request: Differential reporting of rolloutresults
Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:19:29 +0100
From: Massimiliano Maini [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: 29 June 2009 10:44
> RNG Options
> However, I'll pose the question, "Why do we have a choice of
> It's not essential for backgammon; Snowie, JF and BgBlitz
> more than one, and I'll bet extreme gammon doesn't either.
> The only reason can be to remove doubt that gnubg manipulates
> I don't think there is much doubt that gnubg is honest among
> players, therefore the reason for it's existence is gone.
Hmmm, I constantly see people with serious doubts about gnubg's
No matter the effort you put in to try to show them it's fair,
to their silly position.
We probably don't need 5 RNGs: 1 good one (MT), plus manual dice
and an external
one (random.org) should be enough.
Indeed. The plethora of dice alternatives does not help win the
argument. Such people are unlikely to be convinced by anything, so I
wouldn't cater to their folly. I agree that manual dice should remain. I
see no need for random.org, myself, but am open to persuasion.
Perhaps RNG's should be removed 1 by 1, and see whether anyone notices!
> Differential reporting of rollout results
> By showing only the changes, it also makes the changes themselves
> to spot.
One partial solution would be to put the rollout results first (all the
decisions) and only after, the settings of each move/decision, even if
It swon't help spotting the differences but it's fairly easy to
will improve readability of results.
Moving them all to the end is a pretty good idea.
Re: [Bug-gnubg] Feature Request: Differential reporting of rollout results, Myshkin LeVine, 2009/06/29