RE: [Bug-gnubg] Feature Request: Differential reporting of rolloutresults

[Ian Shaw]

        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
RNG?"
        > 
        > It's not essential for backgammon; Snowie, JF and BgBlitz
don't need
        > more than one, and I'll bet extreme gammon doesn't either.
        > The only reason can be to remove doubt that gnubg manipulates
the dice.
        > I don't think there is much doubt that gnubg is honest among
backgammon
        > players, therefore the reason for it's existence is gone.
        
        Hmmm, I constantly see people with serious doubts about gnubg's
dice. 
        No matter the effort you put in to try to show them it's fair,
they stick 
        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
easier
> to spot.

One partial solution would be to put the rollout results first (all the
moves/ 
decisions) and only after, the settings of each move/decision, even if
they are 
all identical. 
It swon't help spotting the differences but it's fairly easy to
implement and 
will improve readability of results. 

Moving them all to the end is a pretty good idea. 

-- Ian