RE: [gnugo-devel] remaining patches

[Portela Fernand]

Dan wrote:

> evan_3_13.8. Owl tuning. The proposed pattern A424 is very
> reminiscent of A1120 that Nando took out in 3.3.11. Perhaps 
> Nando can comment on whether this patch is at odds with
> the philosophy he explained in connection with
> nando_3_13.3 and other patches.

The motivation behind almost all the tunings I submitted
(specially the latest one) was the performance, just because it
seems to me that it's currently an important issue. From its
definition only, it is impossible to tell exactly if a pattern
is bad and/or expensive. For instance, VA44 looks like a very
good pattern, a very logical move if the optics code missed it.
But actually, it's success rate is under 3% and it costs about
10% owl nodes. I'm currently trying to find a better contraint to
reduce this negative performance impact.

I can't say much about evan_3_13.8, since I haven't tried it yet.
At first sight, it looks like the proposed A424 could indeed be
expensive. 

I think submitted owl tunings should always be documented with
full regression results, i.e. documented breakage and performance
impact. Maybe I missed it on the list, but I don't recall seeing
such kind of documentation for evan_3_13.8

/nando