Re: [gnugo-devel] trevor_1_17.7

[Trevor Morris]

>From the patch:
>> +Pattern D721
>> +#tm New Pattern (3.1.17)
>> +
>> +.X? 
>> +X.X
>> +.*X
>> +
>
>This pattern had better be an Axxx pattern.
Yes, it's in attackpats.db - just misnamed.  I've renamed it to
A811, which'll be in my next patch.

>
>>  Pattern D1310
>>  #tm modified (3.1.15) (see trevora:400)
>> +#tm added b constraint (3.1.17)
>>  
>>  ?ooo
>>  ?ooo    try to escape
>>  X*oo
>>  ?OX?
>>  
>> -:8,-,value(80)
>> +:8,-b,value(80)
>
>Does the b classification really make any difference here?
I think, probably not.  This was an errant experiment.  I
forget the problem, but this did not solve it.

>>  Pattern EB713
>> +# tm modified (3.1.17)
>>  
>>  ?O..          block
>>  X*..
>>  ----
>>  
>> -:8,OXb,followup(3)
>> +:8,OXb,reverse_followup(3)
>>  
>>  ?Ob.
>> -X*a.
>> +C*a.
>>  ----
>>  
>> +;!owl_threatens(*,C) &&
>>  ;!xplay_attack_either(*,a,b,*,b)
>> +
>
>I agree that reverse_followup is more appropriate than followup, but
>why should this not be awarded if * is an owl threat against C?
Again, you're right.  My thought was that the reverse followup
would probably be over_valued, but that's just wrong.

>> -Pattern Conn106
>> -
>> -??.?        indirect connection
>> -*O.O
>> -....
>> -
>> -:8,C
>> -
>> -??e?
>> -*OaO
>> -.dbc
>> -
>> -;oplay_attack(*,a,b,e,c,d,d)
>> +#tm removed (3.1.17)
>> +#  this is a very strange way to connect.
>> +#  see, for example, buzco:8
>
>That's beside the point. Sometimes this connection is the only way to
>connect while simultaneously managing to do something else, e.g.
>tactically capturing some stones. Thus the move should have a
>connection move reason. If it's an inappropriate way to play in some
>context, this should be taken care of by other means, typically shape
>values, replace patterns or antisuji patterns.
OK.