[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gnugo-devel] trevor_1_14.5
From: |
Trevor Morris |
Subject: |
Re: [gnugo-devel] trevor_1_14.5 |
Date: |
Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:47:25 -0500 |
At 12:16 PM 11/16/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>
>> > http://www.public32.com/games/go/trevor_1_14.5.tar.gz
>>
>> Why does this patch remove owl attack pattern A1?
>>
>> That pattern looks needed to me. You could quibble with
>> the valuation.
>
>I added this patch to the CVS. But it removes four patterns,
>A1, A303, A304, A1001 and D211. I let the removal of A1001
>stand, but I didn't remove the other patterns. A1, A303 and A304
>definitely look needed, and the specific tuning of D211
>(value 71) makes me think that yes, as the patch comment says,
>that move might be covered by other patterns but with lower valuation.
A1: Gunnar's defended already - thanks, so perhaps it can be salvaged.
A303: Could be useful, though one space to the left of a is prob. better.
A304: B should never try *, so no need to defend it.
A1004: I couldn't see why this made sense.
D211: I saw the following match:
|..O
|..O try before hanging connection
|.OX
|.*O #This O ...
|.O. # and this O are not present in the pattern.
- This was such a bad move, that I removed the pattern.
On all of these, removing them broke no regression test. Going with
the strategy that more is less, I still believe they should all be
removed, until a suitable test case that requires them has been
constructed. We could debate the relative merits of various patterns
for quite a while. It seems to me more productive to let the test
cases speak for themselves.
I didn't mention that this patch reduced the number of owl_nodes by
about 9% (from 19012 to 17351) in owl.tst. Partly by removing these
patterns, and partly by improving the reading on other problems.
-Trevor
- [gnugo-devel] trevor_1_14.5, Trevor Morris, 2001/11/15
- Re: [gnugo-devel] trevor_1_14.5, Daniel Bump, 2001/11/16
- Re: [gnugo-devel] trevor_1_14.5, Gunnar Farneback, 2001/11/16
- Re: [gnugo-devel] trevor_1_14.5, Daniel Bump, 2001/11/16
- Re: [gnugo-devel] trevor_1_14.5, Gunnar Farneback, 2001/11/17
- Re: [gnugo-devel] trevor_1_14.5, Daniel Bump, 2001/11/17
- Re: [gnugo-devel] trevor_1_14.5, Gunnar Farneback, 2001/11/17
- Re: [gnugo-devel] trevor_1_14.5, Trevor Morris, 2001/11/17