Re: [Bug-gnubg] changes to skill handling

[Holger]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:46:30 +0200, Nardy Pillards wrote:

> > 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 am interested in moves, showing doubtful or (very) bad at 0-ply and 
> turning into no doubtful at 2-ply.
> I understand SKILL_VERYGOOD isn't suitable for such moves, but I 
> really would like to see something.
> So maybe SKILL_INTERESTING ??

If this feature should eventually get implemented this is probably
better than to use "good".

> > 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.
> 
> I agree with analyzed - not analyzed.
> And whether that is 'good' or 'ok' or ... really doesn't care.
> My mother used to say 'Good boy' (I admit, not every day, but it 
> happened ;-)). She didn't day 'OK boy'.
> Thus slight preference for 'good' over 'OK' 

Those SKILL_* are only #defines for the source to identify a move
type. What consequences this has for the UI is an entirely different
cattle of fish.
Part of my point was that I don't want any text in the annotation
window (that is, a blank entry in the drop down) for moves that are
ok, normal or whatever. IMHO an annotation should only be set when
there's a reason. Otherwise it just distracts.

Regards,

        Holger