[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [gnugo-devel] owl:11

From: Evan Berggren Daniel
Subject: Re: [gnugo-devel] owl:11
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 20:04:15 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 address@hidden wrote:

> > >   recommendation: enhance reading.c to handle seki
> > > case.
> >
> > This is a reasonable thing, I think.  I would worry about performance.
> >
> > But, as with all things:  try it and see.  If it works, great.
> It's really not up to the tactical reading code in
> reading.c to recognize seki. Seki is a dragon issue,
> not a worm issue, so the code in worm.c and reading.c
> is probably functioning correctly in this case.
> Currently the semeai code tries to recognize seki but
> the semeai code is not called in this position because
> the two W worms at T8 and T10 are inessential.
> I'm not sure how to solve this regression but enhancing
> reading.c is not the way.

In general I'd agree that seki should be handled by owl.  However, it
would seem to me that this could result in cases where the tactics code
thinks the string is dead, but cannot find an attack point.  That seems
like a mild problem to me, and simple seki handling (treat it as tactical
life) seems like a reasonable solution.  Is there a reason this is a bad
approach, beyond it really being the responsibility of the owl code and
possible performance issues?  (Which is not to say I think those are bad
reasons, I'm just curious.)


Evan Daniel

reply via email to

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