[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gnugo-devel] fuseki db
From: |
Gunnar Farnebäck |
Subject: |
Re: [gnugo-devel] fuseki db |
Date: |
Fri, 03 Dec 2004 03:15:32 +0100 |
User-agent: |
EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.3 (sparc-sun-solaris2.9) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
Doug wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand. You mean for matching the fuseki patterns
> during play, right?
Yes, only compile 64-bit hashes into the binary instead of less
compact full board descriptions (various associated values must remain
too of course).
> In principle, one could do all pattern matching with
> hashes, but I agree it makes particular sense for whole-board patterns.
Well, arbitrarily shaped patterns anywhere on the board and in any
orientation plus lots of wildcards does not seem very attractive for a
hashbased matching. I was thinking specifically of whole-board
patterns without wildcards.
> This did occur to me, but since there's normally some general
> purpose compression applied along the way, it wasn't clear how big the
> benefit might be.
That is true, but it should be possible to do better with a custom
compression. For some of us who have lots of cvs working copies and
(unpacked) old versions lying around it could also save quite a bit of
diskspace.
> One other thing I noticed: if pattern 1000 is put back in, regression test
> nngs4:810 ought to be changed as well. I guess I should check regression
> for the whole new fuseki db, in case there are others like that.
I don't think there are any more tests like that. I took out pattern
1000 specifically in response to that testcase.
> So should I make a patch putting those five patterns back in, or just edit
> the db files?
Either is fine with me but it would be good if someone more offered
their opinion on those patterns.
/Gunnar