Re: [Bug-gnubg] changes to skill handling

[Holger]

[Top posting fixed. Please don't top post. It makes it hard to follow a 
thread.]

At 06:37 21.08.2003 +1200, Joseph Heled wrote:

> Holger wrote:
>
> > I have only now analysed a match with a later build and must say that I 
> > liked it better with no text in the annotation window if gnubg didn't 
> > find a fault with my move. It coincides better with the luck analysis on 
> > the left hand side. Also, "good" (or any other text) raises attention 
> > when there's imho no need because the move was ok. It's different if it 
> > would've been outstanding, but so far we don't make that distinction.
> > For the internal storage I agree to have a distinction between a not 
> > analysed and an analysed move. So for a not analysed move (or one without 
> > annotations) SKILL_NONE should be set. For analysed moves that are in 
> > neither way prominent I suggest SKILL_OK. Neither of both should mark the 
> > move with !, ?, ?! in the game record and SKILL_OK should also leave the 
> > drop down of the move analysis in the annotation window blank. SKILL_NONE 
> > might give an entry of "not analysed".
> > Last, I think SKILL_VERYGOOD (and SKILL_GOOD used in this sense) should 
> > return even if gnubg doesn't recognise a move as such and thus doesn't 
> > set these flags. One can still set them manually for annotation purposes.
> > To sum it up, I'd like to see the following flags: SKILL_NONE, 
> > SKILL_VERYBAD, SKILL_BAD, SKILL_DOUBTFUL, SKILL_OK, SKILL_GOOD and maybe 
> > SKILL_VERYGOOD.
> > And while playing with this I think to have found a small bug:
> > It's not possible to mark a move manually as good. All other choices 
> > work, though.
>
> In the GUI or CLI or both?

GUI, didn't try from the command line. But it seems that you've fixed this 
already.

> First the issue of SKILL_VERYGOOD. I can't see why the fact that GNUbg 
> 0ply and 2ply disagreed as a reason to mark a move verygood (or any other 
> criteria for that matter).

I was not suggesting that this should be used. I didn't want to touch this 
discussion. But as I wrote above, the ability to mark a move in any way as 
good or very good is simply useful for annotation. If we don't come up with 
an automatic way of determining an outstanding move, no problem at all. The 
mere existence of the flag doesn't mean that it has to be set automatically.

> If everyone agrees that you want to change 'good' to 'ok', that is easy to do.
> If you prefer not to see the 'good/ok' mark, please say so. I thought you 
> might want to distinguish between non-analyzed moves and analyzed-as-ok moves.

Yes. I think that's what I wrote.

> If we can agree on the above two I will make the change.

I'd favour this. Also see the post from Massimiliano Maini. It seems that 
rating a normal move good seems to confuse users.

Regards,

        Holger