Re: [Bug-gnubg] The match and game data structure

[Jim Segrave]

On Mon 03 Jul 2006 (17:39 +0100), Ian Shaw wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Segrave [mailto:address@hidden 
> > Sent: 03 July 2006 12:06
> > To: Ian Shaw
> > Cc: Øystein Johansen; address@hidden
> > Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] The match and game data structure
> > 
> > On Mon 03 Jul 2006 (11:38 +0100), Ian Shaw wrote:
> > > 
> > > Jim Segrave Sent: 30 June 2006 16:11
> > > > 
> > > > Along with this, move the analysis and rollout contexts, if any 
> > > > analysis or rollout is done to the match header. I think few 
> > > > analysed matches have more than a single analysis context 
> > or rollout 
> > > > context used,
> > > 
> > > I don't think this is correct (but maybe I misunderstand 
> > your point). I know people who will perform a quick 0-ply 
> > rollout, and then maybe follow it up with a 2-ply rollout on 
> > the most likely candidates.
> > > 
> > 
> > Sure, but then all the analysis is either 0 ply evalutation, 
> > 2 ply evaluation or one of two rollout contexts. In all, any 
> > data on a particular move uses only one of 4 possible 
> > contexts. In a 21 point match, we currently store perhaps 800 
> > or so analysis contexts and output those 800 contexts to the 
> > .sgf file. I'm proposing you store and output only 4 
> > contexts, then 800 moves with a simple index to the analysis 
> > context which is applicable. 
> > 
> 
> I wholeheartedly support your aim, I just want to help ensure we don't 
> accidently reduce the functionality by not considering some facet.
> 
> Specifying a miaximum 1, 2 or 4 possible contexts seems problematic to me, 
> but we certainly do not require 1 per move, as at present.
> 
> You propose to index to the appropriate context. Is it then possible to have 
> a record area for contexts, that you append to as the user defines new 
> contexts? The context list would be similar to to a game record, in that it 
> is potentially infinite, but is should always be no longer than the move list.
> 
> If you don't do this, you will simply have to limit the user to "Quick" and 
> "Strong" settings, which might have a knock-on effect on the GUI design. 

I would expect it to be an expandable array, so there would be no
hard-coded limit on the number of different contexts

-- 
Jim Segrave           address@hidden