Pascal Georges wrote:
Hi!
> Hm, well this will require the opening trainer to work
> with masks instead of bases as well. Do you plan this
> for the near future? Otherwise there's some need to
> convert between both.
>
> Yes, it is on the TODO list : opening trainer is now
> obsolete for me (that is for my own usage). But I don't
> know yet what to do with the training option available in
> the Tree window. It seems sufficient like that for me :
> adding functions (like stats, popping a message when the
> user chose a move that is not in the Mask or flagged with
> a "?") does not mean the user gets a better training tool.
Well I think the statistical evaluation might be worth
porting over. It would ease up to measure a certain
progress. In the sense "you most likely lost cause you
followed the ? line".
> So at first sight, the removal of "opening trainer" is
> pending. Any objections?
I would suggest to probably keep the entry but jump to a
proper setup tree window. This little hook "training" is not
too obvious in the tree window, I think.
> When filling the Mask with a base, you have a progression
> bar popping for every game, and a "cancel" button : I
> checked that and it works. But maybe you got a race
> problem : if the base contains 1000 games with 2 moves
> each, the dialog will pop up 1000 times for 0.1 sec, then
> you will not have time to press the cancel button and the
> flickering box is certainly annoying in this extreme case.
Well similar. Not 1000 games with 2 moves but say 100 with
10 or something like that.
> This certainly needs polishing but I insist about the fact
> that this import is a migration process that should be
> used once for all.
This could well be. I think it could be easier to enter a
new system by means of traditional lines and variations.
Say, you start working trough a book on an opening and
usualy you've this "List of variations" at the end of the
book, and to work this into a mask to get a start for the
study IMHO is easier to accomplish by means of a base simply
cause one can use a lot of copy&paste here and could come
down to business a bit faster. I've always this break in
media: the DB on one hand and the books on the other, so I
tend to add references to my printed literature quite a lot
into Scid DBs.
> Well, I try to use the repertoir functionalities the
> way I understood you invented them. ;)
>
> Well I don't understand your remark given that you seem to
> have made Mask's help clearer ;-) The idea is that the
> Tree window (with masks) has everything : all information
> related to openings (except what belongs to the Book
> window). The user should not need to use Repertoire editor
> nor any Opening base (as I used to have).
I admit that this confused me. Till now I understood that
there will be a close relation between the mask and the
opening bases, ie. that in the end there will be a Base to
Mask and also a Mask to Base.
> This is nice but if I want to use your opening
> training function as well this requires me to set up a
> base, isn't it? Or is that also handled differently?
>
> You are right, there is some inconsistency here. But the
> real question is : does anybody really use the opening
> trainer ? Isn't the Training facility in Tree window
> better ? Don't you think I should remove the Opening
> trainer ?
I admit that I spent to much time in hacking within Scid
lately, hence my training got a bit stuck. But I'm right
in the middle of moving my old repertoir files to the new
structure.
> Could you give me (us) some enlighteing
> commentary/documentation of this? Does this mean that
> the opening trainer should get removed? What's the
> general direction here?
>
>
> See above. I'd vote for an inhibition of the menu entry,
> just to get reactions. And if anybody is attached to the
> Opening trainer, I'd like to know why and I'd try to
> migrate the missing functionality to the Tree's trainer.
I don't stick by heart to it. I'd suggest to port over the
statistics, maybe also an evaluation at the end, say, the
line played with the annotations from the mask, all the ? an
?! one moved and maybe the commentary if any. Just to give
some feedback where it might have went wrong and where to
have a deeper look into the positions.
[...]
> Yes, forget everything except the Mask : don't you find it
> clearer and easier to use ? When entering moves in a base,
> how do you handle transpositions ? There is no such
> problem with Tree + Mask.
I agree on that, but I still add you should probably have
communicated this intention. As far as I got it your
intention was to keep both with a close interchange.
Still for the above points I'd keep the "import from base".
And I admit that I'm not entirely happy with the commentary
functions in the tree (textual commentary). I'll have to
work with that a bit more I think.
> How would I add a "trap" to the mask, ie a ?? move
> that is not played ever but worth knowing and should
> be remarked for the learner?
>
> Imagine a move in a position deserves a ??. If it is not
> present in any game in the reference base, it will never
> pop up when using the training function of the Tree
> window. More generally, the problem is that you can't add
> a move in the Mask that is not played in the reference
> base
That is the point. I mean, I've to admit I'm a slightly
weaker player than Kasparov (ok, now it's out). Having said
that, there is indeed sometimes the point where I just miss
a critical point and I would want to note that. Just
recently I blundered away a French defence cause I
overlooked that Be7 is missing in that specific line and the
"natural" c5 is just not possible. I admit that I'd like to
have a BIG RED BLINKING REMARK about this ;) Ok, chances are
good that I'll not miss that point again. But well, I admit
I'd prefer to not have made this silly blunder ;)
> (note that if a move already exists in the Mask and not
> present in the Tree it will be displayed at the bottom of
> the Tree). I don't know if this is desirable or not, but
> it is a case where an opening base still makes sense. But
> is it worth to care about a move that was never played in
> your 3M games database ?
In the above case I think it is. Point is that the average
player might not have the average strength of your 3M DB. I
think it would be nice if I could then add, so to say, a
sideline with that error.
--
Kind regards, / War is Peace.
| Freedom is Slavery.
Alexander Wagner | Ignorance is Strength.
|
| Theory : G. Orwell, "1984"
/ In practice: USA, since 2001
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Scid-users mailing list
Scid-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
