Hi Michael, I completely agree that it is time to declare GnuBG to be at version 1.0. I believe this was proposed before on the list, but never really acted upon. It is definitely time. I joined the group quite a while ago with the intention of cleaning up the documentation. I haven't done anything on that in a long time, sorry. So, I would be more than happy to help you make the necessary changes in the documentation. Perhaps we can touch base off-list on exactly what each of us would be changing. Take care, Myshkin LeVine
From: Michael Petch <address@hidden>
Date: May 2, 2013 3:17:07 PM EDT
Subject: [Bug-gnubg] Version 1.0 ?
Hi All,
I'm of the opinion that given the stability of the current builds on
Unix and Windows platforms, and what appears as a measurable increase in
strength and better performance on 3ply (Depreli studies suggest it),
that we should consider ourselves at 1.0 . If we aren't at 1.0 yet, then
we probably will never have a reason to be.
We have a stable product, yes it has some known bugs, but in general I
think we can finally pull it out of testing after more than a decade.
Anyone have any objections?
If there aren't any sizable objections, it may require some
documentation tweaking (to up issue from 0.91) to 1.0, and possibly move
the version of the weights file to 1.0 as well.
Questions, comments etc, please feel free to make them known.
Preliminary (not complete) Depreli results are attached using XG2
rollouts as of 20130427. A regression (using v0.91) still has to be done
against all decisions in the original match files to see if more
positions need rollouts over what is in the current Depreli list. This
would likely increase the totals, but I don't believe it will be
substantial.
--
Michael Petch
GNU Backgammon Developer
OpenPGP FingerPrint=D81C 6A0D 987E 7DA5 3219 6715 466A 2ACE 5CAE 3304
<gnubg_prelim_results-3.txt>
|