Hi David, Thanks for these information. Your patterns are not automatically extracted; I don't know to which extent we would benefit from patterns like yours in MoGo, or to which extent you would benefit from automatically extracted patterns as ours, and to which extent it is nearly equivalent or redundant.
> I don’t think of Many Faces as having a big database of patterns since > there is so much code, and only 1900 general patterns, but I think in > comparison with other strong programs you might consider it to have a large > pattern database. > Sure! it's different in the way you generate it, but it's also a large pattern database. That's nearly what I meant by writing that you have a huge part of go expertise (in my mind I separated automatically extracted patterns and handcrafted rules for biasing the tree search - sorry for my unclear email). For us, we had a big improvement in mogo when adding patterns _after_ RAVE, and I don't know clearly if we should try to remove rave (and then tuning the formula - this is a tedious work and that's why I've not tested it yet). If you have added rave _after_ patterns, and also had a great improvement, this might indicate that both are necessary for optimal performance. Best regards, Olivier
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
