RE: [gnugo-devel] More on minimum values

[Portela Fernand]

Evan wrote:

> Also, I didn't want my patch to impact endgame moves.  Maybe it
> should, but I wasn't looking for those.

Endgame patterns usually have (min)terri() clauses, not (min)value()
ones. So they shouldn't be that much impacted anyway.

> Consider the case of two J moves, valued at 24.9 and 25.1.
> Both get a minimum value of 25. If the current method was extended,
> the lower valued move, being less than the minimum value, would get
> an increase in its minimum value of 24.9 / 200 = .125, making it
> valued at 25.125, higher than the second move. 

I believe you are mistaken here (reread the current code or do a test,
you will see), but anyway, I'm not defending the current mechanism.
Arend presented good arguments and also wrote :

> But yes, we should not have two such mechanisms. 

Since you also think :

> I see no reason that we couldn't eliminate the current version and
> replace it with my new version.

Very well then, why not replace it immediately ?

/nando