[gnugo-devel] eye patterns

[Paul Pogonyshev]

this patch is extracted from paul_3_18.7. regression delta is negative,
but i believe the patch itself is correct.

strategy2:77    FAIL H15 [H3]
strategy2:80    FAIL S8 [P4|Q4|Q3]
nngs3:740       FAIL F2 [!F2]


strategy2:77 now gnu go prefers H15 since it thinks H15 attacks H17. the patch
             saves some owl nodes here: original gnu go with OWL_NODE_LIMIT
             set to 1200 says H15 as well.

strategy2:80 S8 looks like a correct move to me (in addition to P4, Q4 and Q3).
             it's not that solid, but it does win the semeai. i don't exactly
             understand why it doesn't like Q4 anymore, owl_does_attack Q4 R5
             says "1". however, nonpatched gnu go with OWL_NODE_LIMIT raised
             to 2000 agrees with patched one that S8 is better than Q4.

nngs3:740    gnu go was never good in reading such unclear positions. with
             the patch it sees that E2 doesn't owl defend C2 (because it
             orders attacking moves differently and doesn't run out of nodes).
             so it devalues E2 a couple points and F2 becomes the top move.
             nonpatched gnu go with OWL_NODE_LIMIT == 2000 doesn't count E2
             as an owl defence for C2 (it doesn't like F2 at all, but that's
             another story).

so, all three fails are effectively caused by saved owl nodes.

the total effect on node counters is like this (a negligible decrease):

  before: 1219215221 2215168 5438563
  after:  1219061513 2214212 5429166
              -0.01%  -0.04%  -0.17%

Paul


Index: eyes.db
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/gnugo/gnugo/patterns/eyes.db,v
retrieving revision 1.36
diff -u -p -r1.36 eyes.db
--- eyes.db     21 Apr 2003 21:40:36 -0000      1.36
+++ eyes.db     23 Apr 2003 20:17:10 -0000
@@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ Pattern 305
 
 
 Pattern 306
-# a chimera
+# A chimera.
 
 address@hidden
 
@@ -583,7 +583,6 @@ Pattern 451
 #
 
 Pattern 461
-# Must be matched before 462.
 
 *X
 X.
@@ -661,19 +660,13 @@ Pattern 469
 
 Pattern 491
 
- .
-!X!
-
-:0001
-
-Pattern 492
-
 !!
 XX
 
 :0001
 
-Pattern 493
+
+Pattern 492
 
 !x
 x!
@@ -681,7 +674,7 @@ x!
 :0002
 
 
-Pattern 494
+Pattern 493
 
  !
 !x!
@@ -1025,7 +1018,7 @@ Pattern 5122
 
 !.XXX
 
-:0112
+:1112
 
 
 Pattern 5123
@@ -1229,7 +1222,7 @@ XXX.
 Pattern 5204
 
  x
-xXXx
+xXX.
 
 :1111
 
@@ -1268,6 +1261,7 @@ Pattern 5214
 
 
 Pattern 5215
+# Must be matched before 5216.
 
  X
 !.XX
@@ -1278,7 +1272,7 @@ Pattern 5215
 Pattern 5216
 
  x
-!*xx
+!*Xx
 
 :0122
 
@@ -1352,7 +1346,7 @@ Pattern 5225
  X
 XX.!
 
-:0112
+:1112
 
 
 Pattern 5226
@@ -2425,7 +2419,7 @@ Pattern 6091
 
 !....$
 
-:1111
+:0111
 
 
 Pattern 6092
@@ -2592,7 +2586,6 @@ x*x.!
 
 
 Pattern 6152
-# Attacking at the other marginal vertices is sometimes incorrect.
 
  !
 !..x@
@@ -2649,7 +2642,7 @@ Pattern 6206
   x
 .XX.!
 
-:1111
+:0111
 
 
 Pattern 6207
@@ -2673,7 +2666,7 @@ Pattern 6209
   x
 ..XX!
 
-:0111
+:0112
 
 
 Pattern 6210
@@ -2783,13 +2776,14 @@ x..x@
 Pattern 6261
 # tm New Pattern (3.1.22) (see owl:111)
 
-  @
-!.*.!
+  )
address@hidden>.@
 
 :0011
 
 
 Pattern 6262
+# FIXME: I don't understand this pattern. Is it correct? -pp
 
   !
 !x..!
@@ -3296,7 +3290,7 @@ Pattern 6427
 Xx
 x.x!
 
-:1111
+:1112
 
 
 Pattern 6428
@@ -4399,6 +4393,8 @@ Pattern 70004
 
 
 Pattern 70005
+# FIXME: This pattern looks like 1112 to me. "$...<." seems to be
+#       attackable at '<'. -pp
 
 $.....@