[gnugo-devel] some question

[zergling]

Hello, every one.
This is my first time to post messege on gnugo-devel maillist.
But I have subscribed the mail list for a long time.
I am very interested with computer go.
I read throught the gnugo's code and  yestoday.
I am very shocked. There is not any search algorithm using in gnugo?
I have play with many computer go programs, such as many face of go ,
handtalk , ifungo.
Handtalk is the strongest, fastest and smallest. You can not image it , it
is only 69K.
And it has a good UI, and many extra function. No doubt it has a efficient
search engine and
accurate evalute function and a little inline fundmantal knowledge such as
shape , simple joseki etc.
I think that the good comupter go program must has a simple but effcient
core(search engine), and an accurate evaluation function based on mathematic
model. Not like gnugo it is big and slow, full of patchs and many "simple"
bugs.
It is hard to maintain and extend.

You have paid many time on it. Why not use more to think, less to code.

----- Original Message -----
From: <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 1:03 AM
Subject: gnugo-devel digest, Vol 1 #240 - 2 msgs


> Send gnugo-devel mailing list submissions to
> address@hidden
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> address@hidden
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> address@hidden
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of gnugo-devel digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Recent games (Gunnar Farneback)
>    2. Test results, owl problem (Daniel Bump)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [gnugo-devel] Recent games
> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:59:10 +0100
> From: Gunnar Farneback <address@hidden>
> Reply-To: address@hidden
>
> Dan wrote:
> > Inge speculated that GoFuN is Fungo, a strong Korean program
> > by Fun Goo Park. On NNGS stats GoFuN turns up "user not found".
> > I'm not sure what this means.
>
> It means that GoFuN has been playing from an unregistered account.
> Personally I doubt that GoFuN is a computer program at all. If it is,
> it's superbly well tuned and quite a bit stronger than any other
> program.
>
> > Anyway, many of these are games where GNU Go loses groups, starting
> > to develop them then abandoning them. They probably merit study, for
> > often GNU Go gets into difficulty without obvious tuning points
> > along the way.
>
> Yes, this is one of the most important problems right now.
>
> /Gunnar
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 20:26:27 -0800
> From: Daniel Bump <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: [gnugo-devel] Test results, owl problem
> Reply-To: address@hidden
>
>
> I updated the test results, even though I'm not doing a release
> tonight. The current version can be checked out with the CVS
> tag rel-3-1-28-pre-3. Not much had changed in the test results
> except for the new nngs1 tests. For details, see regression/BREAKAGE.
>
> I remain of the opinion that we shouldn't do owl tuning until
> after 3.2 but this weekend I got sucked into the owl code. I'll
> mention a situation which is worth comment. See owl:257.
>
> In the new file
> regression/games/owl35.sgf an owl mistake is made when we run
> decide-dragon on J3.
>
>  7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
>  6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
>  5 . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . X . . . 5
>  4 . . O + O . . . O X X . . . . + . . . 4
>  3 . . . . . . . . X O . X . . . X . . . 3
>  2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
>  1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
>    A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P Q R S T
>
> GNU thinks that H3 captures J3. After
>
> W:H3 B:J2 W:K2 B:H2 W:G2 B:G3 W:H4 the position
> looks like this:
>
>  7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
>  6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
>  5 . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . X . . . 5
>  4 . . O + O . . O O X X . . . . + . . . 4
>  3 . . . . . . X O X O . X . . . X . . . 3
>  2 . . . . . . O X X O . . . . . . . . . 2
>  1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
>    A B C D E F G H J K L M N O P Q R S T
>
> Now X gives up because of this code, around line 2003 of owl.c:
>
>      }
>      if (probable_max < 2 && stackp > 2)
>      move_cutoff = 99; /* Effectively disable vital moves. */
>    }
>
> This means that the lunch at G2 is not eaten. Taking
> out this code improves things, but a further problem arises.
> Instead of H4, W tries J1 and again B gives up. The pattern
> D1336 would be matched, but the owl escape value at G4 is 0.
> I tried a few more things to fix this problem but ended
> up breaking more tests than I fixed.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnugo-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel
>
>
> End of gnugo-devel Digest
>