[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [gnugo-devel] Proposed owl_determine_life() improvement

From: Portela Fernand
Subject: RE: [gnugo-devel] Proposed owl_determine_life() improvement
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 01:57:18 +0100

Dan wrote:

> While we're on the subject of owl_determine_life, here's an
> example of a not too uncommon type where something goes 
> seriously wrong. I think this example is worth pondering.
> (...)
> But we have the following around line 2020 in do_owl_defend:
>    if (eyemax < 2 && stackp > 2)
>      move_cutoff = 99; /* Effectively disable vital moves. */

I didn't try yet to find alternatives to this policy. I suspect it
would cause quite a bunch of problems. I'm ready to investigate more,
but I'd need more examples like this one. Can you provide some Dan ?

For this specific case though, I found something which is worth
considering IMO. When you look at D622, it seems that the database
already has the move. It suffices to exchange the marked points :

->*OX?       solidify eye and threaten to make more on the edge

I tested that a D622a pattern like this solves nngs4:30 and I'm
currently running the regression tests to see what happens elsewhere.


PS: I'm wondering if it would be interesting to modify mkpat.c to
accept wildcards like :


which would generate

OOX? and *OX?
*XOo     OXOo
....     ....
----     ----

with the same set of constraints (if present)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]