[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gnugo-devel] Proposed owl_determine_life() improvement
From: |
Trevor Morris |
Subject: |
Re: [gnugo-devel] Proposed owl_determine_life() improvement |
Date: |
Sun, 03 Nov 2002 10:08:26 -0500 |
At 07:04 AM 11/3/2002 +0100, Nando wrote:
>...
>handtalk:2 FAIL Accidental. With --owl-node-limit 1200, the test
> succeeds. Another way to deal with it is to raise
> a bit the value of D1401 (I tested it has no
> other impact than fixing this fail). Not sure
> it's the "right thing" to do though.
>...
Tweaking pattern values to improve test results is something that I've
certainly done, and I don't think anyone would object. I think it's even
a good idea. As someone (Arend, I think) pointed out, there are a lot
of patterns with the same value, and this doesn't really make sense.
In particular in owl_defendpats, there are 40 patterns with value(35),
including D1401.
Related to this, I think automated tuning of these values is a fine idea.
Likewise, I think automated modification of the owl pattern databases
based on known life & death problems would be useful.
-Trevor
- [gnugo-devel] Proposed owl_determine_life() improvement, Nando, 2002/11/03
- Re: [gnugo-devel] Proposed owl_determine_life() improvement,
Trevor Morris <=
- RE: [gnugo-devel] Proposed owl_determine_life() improvement, Portela Fernand, 2002/11/03
- RE: [gnugo-devel] Proposed owl_determine_life() improvement, Portela Fernand, 2002/11/03
- RE: [gnugo-devel] Proposed owl_determine_life() improvement, Portela Fernand, 2002/11/03
- RE: [gnugo-devel] Proposed owl_determine_life() improvement, Portela Fernand, 2002/11/04
- RE: [gnugo-devel] Proposed owl_determine_life() improvement, Portela Fernand, 2002/11/07