Re: [Bug-gnubg] Ratings

2006-12-16 Thread Albert Silver
Ok, thanks. A change must have been made after the first version and I simply wasn't aware of it. I'll fix it. Albert On 12/16/06, Jim Segrave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat 16 Dec 2006 (11:43 -0300), Albert Silver wrote: > Hi all and merry Christmas, > > I received the following question re

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Ratings

2006-12-16 Thread Jim Segrave
On Sat 16 Dec 2006 (11:43 -0300), Albert Silver wrote: > Hi all and merry Christmas, > > I received the following question regarding the tutorial, and included my > reply. > > >1. Comparing some information with the "GNU Backgammon Handbook" on > >http://www.gnubg.org/win32/gnubg/gnubg.html#Anal

[Bug-gnubg] Ratings

2006-12-16 Thread Albert Silver
Hi all and merry Christmas, I received the following question regarding the tutorial, and included my reply. 1. Comparing some information with the "GNU Backgammon Handbook" on http://www.gnubg.org/win32/gnubg/gnubg.html#Analysing I found a difference between the definition of error rates in th