[Bug-gnubg] Re: Gnubg exes. - Seems Good

[Massimiliano Maini]

Michael Petch <address@hidden> wrote on 20/08/2009 19:57:40:

> 
> Okay, this release compares to other outputs, and does seem to fix 
> some fringe plays (Like Keene’s). It also was stable, I had no 
> crashes doing some long analysis and a few rollout.

I did some testing on my side too, to check results across the
different compiling options.

For each of the 24 no-gui exes I have (wmt/gmt/nomt X allsse2/allsse/
sse2/sse/nosse X -O2/-O3 = 30, but the allsse2/allsse -O3 combos crash,
even in CLI, hence I have ony 24 working exes) I run a 2/2ply analysis
of a 7pt match and diff the resulting sgf files.

The only "significative" numerical differences are between sse2/allsse2
and the others, but this is probably due to the new sigmoid code (faster
but a bit less accurate/different, if I'm not wrong).
In terms of meaningful output (total, error rate etc), the differences
I've seen are of 0.002% MWC (in total error) between nosse and sse,
a bit larger in case of sse2 (due to the sigmoid probably), 0.2% MWC.

I have the output in case anyone is interested in having a look.

> The question would be, should we wait for Christian to fix the bug 
> you discovered with bad end of game cube/passes(and clear analysis) 
> and then rebuild a new release?

I would say no, anyway it takes me a few clicks to build a release.

Point is, how do we distribute it, since issues gnubg.org are not
yet solved (I think)..

MaX.