Re: [Bug-gnubg] Strange bearoff analysis

[Jim Segrave]

On Fri 13 Jun 2003 (06:39 +0000), Joern Thyssen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:29:09PM +0200, Jim Segrave wrote
> [snip]
> > > Can you try setting up the two resulting positions with gnubg on roll,
> > > and post the output from "eval", please?
> > 
> > Hmm. On my home machine, I get the above sensible results. The odd
> > ones come from a copy installed at work. 
> 
> Hmm, at work...
> 
> > I'm wondering if my bearoff database or weights file is corrupt in
> > some way. I had a copy built in March which was installed in
> > /usr/local/bin, where I first saw the problem. I also had a recent
> > copy which gave the same strange results. The only thing they'd have
> > in common are the databases in /usr/local/share. I'll try to look at
> > that tomorrow after work, but I begin to think there's something very
> > odd there.
> 
> Since the position you posted is from the in-memory two-sided bearoff
> database and doesn't use neural net, you can check MD5 checksums of the
> database. The correct checksums are in the manual from CVS or from
> Nardy's website.

Arrrgh.
I had a copy of the Windows version back when there was a problem
where it was adding CR-LF's in my home directory. Gnubg uses database
files in the current working directory in preference to
/usr/local/share/gnubg, which is what it should do. But if I started
gnubg when I was in my home directory, I got a junk two sided bearoff
database. Normally I start it from a subdirectory of my ~jes/, so I
hadn't been caught by this before.

While I was regenerating everything, I noticed that the Makefile.in
and Makefile.am still had the old redirects on the bearoff-database target
   makebearoff -t 6x6 > gnubg_ts0.bd; ${MAKE} gnubg.bd

makebearoff now requires the -f option and gnubg.bd is not a
target. I'll commit fixed versions as soon as I've tested.

-- 
Jim Segrave           address@hidden