Re: [gnugo-devel] olib & xlib definition

[Trevor Morris]

At 05:49 PM 2/6/2002 +0100, Gunnar Farneback wrote:
>Trevor wrote:
>> Ah, right, you haven't profiled the experimental pattern-based reading 
>> patterns (and I wouldn't recommend it until my next patch!).  They
>> use olib & xlib quite a lot (perhaps more than they should...)  That
>> was my motivation for the change.  approxlib really is a lot faster
>> than accurate_approxlib.
>
>To begin with, all constraint expressions which are equivalent to
>olib(*) <= 1, and these are quite a few, are really just asking the
>question whether the move would be a self atari (including suicide).
>This is most efficiently solved using the is_self_atari() function and
>it should have its own autohelpers.
>
>For the rest of the patterns outside read_attack.db I'm pretty sure
>that the increased accuracy provided by accurate_approxlib() is worth
>the cost. Compared to a reading constraint the speed difference
>between approxlib() and accurate_approxlib() is rather trivial.
>
>In read_attack.db it seems reasonable that the cost is too high
>though, so there an approxlib() based autohelper would make more
>sense. Regarding the naming, however, I think we should let xlib and
>olib remain accurate and give different names to the approxlib() based
>ones.

Yes, this all sounds good to me.

-Trevor