| |
BGonline.org Forums
Naccel pip numbering diagram test 2
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: Naccel pip numbering diagram test 2 (Matt Ryder)
Date: Tuesday, 12 January 2010, at 4:05 p.m.
Fantastic, Matt -- I really didn't expect you to be able to do all this!
I'll address some loose ends (either putting them behind us or looking at them further):
(3) Make the bar (roof) up to 40% thinner (the width of one checker).
Not done yet. I have two concerns with this proposal: 1. It's quite a bit of work involving several different graphical elements and the size shift may somehow screw up the diagram spacing. 2. The overall board size will differ from other standard diagrams, so they won't line up if placed underneath each other.
Regarding "1," understood. Please don't try, unless you find yourself without something to do on a rainy day. Not only is it a lot of work, but it would be frustrating to then find no good way to also recalibrate the diagram spacing.
Regarding 2, I don't see a problem as the boards are being used for purposes of teaching Naccel; then again, hmm... maybe you're thinking bigger than I am here! In case you're right about 2, it's another reason not to bother.
(4) Is it possible to display the sixth checker on a point above the fifth? (It's okay if it means six-stack is overridden or disabled when the dice or cube would be in the way.)
Not done. I would really advise against this proposal as it's a standard across all backgammon bots to show a maximum of five checkers and then start stacking. Displaying six will be visually confusing if there are six of the same colour on the opposing point (it may be difficult to distinguish how many are on each individual point). Plus as you say, it might get in the way of cube or dice elements.
Assuming the dice and cube can't be moved to a secondary default location, they're just an override (reducing the six-stack to five). The rule can be that when any point on the board must be trimmed (six to five, or seven to six), then all revert to five. These factors complicate the request, but in my view they don't negate the superiority of being able to do six (or even seven or eight) when there is no resistance.
For Naccel teaching purposes, I don't use dice and a cube, and I would rarely if ever need to show two colliding six-stacks. I just want a six-stack to look like a six-stack (e.g., see Naccel post #1).
If (4) is too much work or can't be accomplished, I completely understand, but I want to be clear that otherwise the request still stands.
(5) Is it possible that checkers not on the board can be optionally not shown at all instead of always defaulting to the bear-off tray?
I believe you have addressed this adequately (telling me precisely where to replace "n" with "0"). Thanks, I'll try that.
(6) Create a second diagram with point numbers reversed (used to help teach White counts), and this is a request whether any of (1) through (5) is doable. I would imagine it's mostly a matter of swapping the codes in the point-number lines.
Not done yet. I just want to make sure you're happy with the way I'm doing things. Then I'll mirror it for white.
I need know only the exact lines/strings to swap (so that the top point-number line appears where the bottom one is, and vice versa), unless there's something you can do to remove that step for the user / me. (Earlier, I had naively suggested creating a second diagram because I didn't understand that this is just a matter of html manipulation.)
Recapping: (1) and (2) are done, though I need instruction on how to implement (right?); (3) and (4) are not important, so you can try to do one or both later if you are inclined, and if you still advise against just let them go; (5) is also done unless I encounter an unexpected problem; and (6) is done once you tell me what html strings/lines to swap or you have a better idea.
I repeat -- fantastic!
Nack
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.