[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gnugo-devel] endgame tuning
From: |
Evan Daniel |
Subject: |
Re: [gnugo-devel] endgame tuning |
Date: |
Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:26:56 -0400 |
On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 03:11:20 +0200, Gunnar Farnebäck
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Evan wrote:
> > Also, it looks to me like something is wrong with kgs:230. Is it loading
> > the wrong sgf or something?
>
> Hopefully Arend knows something about it.
>
> I should take this opportunity to advertize the --check-unoccupied
> option of regress.pike.
Interesting.
>
> > +Pattern EE806
> > +# evand new (3.7.1)
> > +# see kgs:70
> > +
> > +|.O??
> > +|.OX.
> > +|.*X.
> > +|....
> > ++----
> > +
> > +:8,OXe,terri(3)
>
> This should be possible to handle with influence tuning but until
> someone does that the pattern looks fine. I'm not sure about 3 points
> of territory, however.
The move is sente and picks up three points of territory -- if instead
the opp is allowed to descend, they get 2 points in the corner, plus
they don't have to connect behind. This pattern might be too small
for that to universally be true, though.
>
> > +Pattern CE34
> > +# evand New pattern. (3.7.1)
> > +# see endgame:920
> > +
> > +?OO
> > +...
> > +O*X
> > +
> > +:8,OXe,terri(1)
>
> Should also eventually be solved by influence tuning.
>
Makes sense.
> > +
> > +?OO
> > +a..
> > +O*X
> > +
> > +;xmoyo(a)
>
> But this constraint can't be right. Should be omoyo(a).
Oops. I wonder why it worked, then.
>
> > +Pattern CE35a
> > +# evand New pattern. (3.7.1)
> > +# see endgame:850
> > +
> > +?X??
> > +.*.o
> > +O..O
> > +?..?
> > +
> > +:8,OXe
> > +
> > +?X??
> > +.*.o
> > +O..O
> > +?ab?
> > +
> > +;omoyo(a) || omoyo(b)
> > +
> > +
> > +Pattern CE35b
> > +# evand New pattern. (3.7.1)
> > +# see endgame:850
> > +
> > +?X??
> > +*..o
> > +O..O
> > +?..?
> > +
> > +:8,OXe
> > +
> > +?X??
> > +.*.o
> > +O..O
> > +?ab?
> > +
> > +;omoyo(a) || omoyo(b)
> > +
> > +
> > +Pattern CE35c
> > +# evand New pattern. (3.7.1)
> > +# see endgame:850
> > +
> > +?X??
> > +..*o
> > +O..O
> > +?..?
> > +
> > +:8,OXe
> > +
> > +?X??
> > +.*.o
> > +O..O
> > +?ab?
> > +
> > +;omoyo(a) || omoyo(b)
>
> These all look fine, but I wonder if they shouldn't go into patterns.db.
>
That makes sense to me.
> > --- patterns/patterns.db 22 Aug 2004 13:07:31 -0000 1.129
> > +++ patterns/patterns.db 7 Sep 2004 02:13:59 -0000
> > @@ -1254,6 +1254,7 @@
> >
> > Pattern CC81
> > # db added (3.1.4)
> > +# evand modified (3.7.1) -- see endgame:910
> >
> > O*X
> > XO?
> > @@ -1265,7 +1266,7 @@
> > XO?
> > ?O?
> >
> > -; does_attack(*,a)
> > +; does_attack(*,a) && lib(a) > 1
> >
> >
> > Pattern CC82
>
> This constraint revision doesn't make much sense to me.
In general, I think that if all the move does is pull a stone out of
atari, the shape considerations are relatively irrelevant compared to
the value of the groups directly involved. If it is a tactical
defense and there are other liberties, then shape may well still be
relevant. Of course, I could be wrong about all that, but that was
the logic behind the change.
Evan Daniel
Re: [gnugo-devel] endgame tuning, Gunnar Farnebäck, 2004/09/08