RE: [gnugo-devel] fast_defense() improvement

[Portela Fernando]

Hi,

Arend wrote:
> Nando, Paul, are you both happy with this? For nngs3.tst, it is almost
> as good as Nando's patch (5% instead of 5.6% save of reading nodes).

It would be perfectly fine with me. Thanks for taking time looking into
this.

For Paul: "proving" the safety looks difficult. It would involve reading,
but that's precisely what we would like to avoid. With Arend's additional
safeguards and optimizations, I'd propose to get the patch in the CVS, possibly 
with a more explicit mention that this code may have to be revised
at a later point, when we encounter a problem.

nando