Is it possible to put node locking implementation at a higher priority?

[energiePoker]

I am just a new poker player and I find that node locking is extremely valuable to learning why the solver do a certain thing and that many players often doesn't play at equilibrium. Therefore, I wonder if it is possible to implement node locking first.

[b-inary]

The priorities of node-locking and aggregated report are interchangeable, but in my opinion node-locking should never have a higher priority than other items. Node-locking is certainly useful, but it is also a very difficult setting to use, even for me. In short, a locked node technically works as a "consensus" between the two players. Therefore, the locked player tries to adjust the strategy on unlocked nodes to recover the "leak". In most cases, this model is far from the real situation and it is not magic that can calculate the best strategy.

However, as you say, the node-locking feature is important for understanding how the solver works. I would like to implement this as soon as possible, and in fact a rough implementation is already done in the solver engine (b-inary/postflop-solver#20). I hope you will be patient.