RE: [gnugo-devel] Owl tuning

[Portela Fernand]

Gunnar wrote:

> In this case I wouldn't say it would be well spent time to examine all
> those PASSes as long as you know that some of them pass thanks to your
> tuning. 

Then it's ok I think. But ...

... I knew I'd need some help :

> This constraint looks strange. The second half gives O three
> consecutive moves which is usually not relevant. You don't mean
> !oplay_connect(*,?,a,b,c) ?

Oops. Right.

> I don't think you planned to count d twice.

Oops again.

> Shouldn't this be constrained on a specific goal string or the O
> stones being short on liberties?

Quite possibly. As it is now, it has no apparent nasty effects (i.e. no
negative effect on the regression tests), but I guess you're right that
it could be improved.

/nando