Re: [Bug-gnubg] Resign bug

[Joern Thyssen]

On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 10:06:00AM -0400, Ric wrote
> I don't doubt that there are legitimate concerns from the programming side
> on this issue. In fact, I'll even argue that the current approach is fine IF
> the user is notified in some obvious way about what is going on. Even a
> popup box announcing "Gnu wins a single game" (or whatever) and thus ending
> the game would be a useful approach. 

That's an alternative solution, but a bit dangerous, since terminating
the game before end by an implicit resignation will be based on gnubg's
evaluator. People may argue that the evaluator is not perfect, and it's
perfectly imaginable that gnubg overlooks a winning
66-21-66-21-66-21-66-21 sequence if analysed at 0-ply (or perhaps even
at 2-ply).

> My basic point is that the user's
> perception of events is sometimes different from the programmer's perception
> and the programmer needs to take that into account. (All said with the
> understanding that gnubg is a work in progress, of course.) 

I'll not enter that discussion.

> 
> Let me note that I'm not a programmer and I'm not a mathematician. 
> I'm a
> writer, and my comments come from the perspective of someone who has to
> always consider his audience and their perceptions. I feel sufficiently
> invested in gnubg becoming a complete success to offer comments when I think
> I have a contribution to make. I may be wrong, and I don't mind being shown
> where I'm wrong, but I don't much care to be insulted for having made the
> offer. 

In my reply I acknowledge that some users view the reported feature of
gnubg as a problem and I have furthermore suggested a solution.  It's up
the mailing list readers to review my solution or suggest alternative
solutions. For example, I don't think the popup solution suggested by
you is a good idea as indicated in my comments above. Other readers may
find my solution inadequate and/or suggest an alternative one.

It's also clear that not everyone can or will comment on the suggested
solution.  Either because they don't care or because they don't
"understand" it (which in turn may be caused by my solution not being
described good enough).

The only reason why I entered the discussion was to describe the current
implmentation and because I found the extra "scoring" function
interesting. Also, if implemented we have (another) feature that Snowie
hasn't -- at least until they read the mailing list :-)

Jørn

pgpLDG7nAfVUy.pgp
Description: PGP signature