[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gnugo-devel] New edge joseki patch
From: |
SP Lee |
Subject: |
Re: [gnugo-devel] New edge joseki patch |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:20:31 -0800 |
>
> I wrote:
>
> > I tend to agree that even if the X stones are weak, a move in
> > the area is almost always urgent. However the solid
> > connection might not be the right move. It is often better to
> > play as follows:
> >
> > .XX..
> > *O.O.
> > .....
> > .....
> > -----
> >
> > :8,J
> >
> > This would be subject to a constraint
> >
> > .XX..
> > *OaO.
> > .cbd.
> > .....
> > -----
> >
> > :8,J
> >
> > ; !oplay_defend(*,a,b,c,d,c)
>
> On an open board position the constraint is not matched. GNU
> believes that X can defend c by crawling.
>
> Dan
>
>
It's thus very hard to cover all situations in fuseki phase. I'm afraid
even if the most situations are covered, the engine speed is no more
acceptable. Of course I can also think of some cases when tenuki is the
only choice, like:
.XX..XX.
X..XX..X
X..O.O.X
X......X
........
--------
The consequence may be that we have to make the size of a joseki pattern
very big, such as:
...?????
O.O.XX..
....O*O.
........
........
--------
but it will not match in slightly changed positions. Without the solid
connection there maybe some aji's. Actually I just want gnugo to know
this is an urgent situation and it got to do 'something' about it.
However, now I seem to be stucked.
SP Lee
- [gnugo-devel] New edge joseki patch, SP lee, 2004/02/22
- Re: [gnugo-devel] New edge joseki patch, Evan Daniel, 2004/02/24
- Re: [gnugo-devel] New edge joseki patch, SP Lee, 2004/02/24
- Re: [gnugo-devel] New edge joseki patch, Paul Pogonyshev, 2004/02/24
- [gnugo-devel] OWL failure !?, md, 2004/02/26
- Re: [gnugo-devel] OWL failure !?, SP Lee, 2004/02/26
- Re: [gnugo-devel] OWL failure !?, SP Lee, 2004/02/26