|Subject:||RE: [Bug-gnubg] FW: Analysis Question|
|Date:||Thu, 3 Sep 2009 10:34:35 +0000|
You said it's a file size issue so I thought I go and compare the file sizes of the same
matches analyzed at gnu 2-ply (world class) and snowie 3-ply huge.
The file sizes are very very close.
Filters don't match exactly but pretty close.
Is file size such an issue given todays cpu speed and huge and cheap storage?
> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 06:13:40 -0400
> To: address@hidden
> From: address@hidden
> Subject: RE: [Bug-gnubg] FW: Analysis Question
> CC: address@hidden; address@hidden; address@hidden
> When gnubg evaluates a play it throws away the existing evaluation (and/or
> rollout) for that play (ignoring the cache). This seems desirable,
> otherwise the .sgf file would be large.
> For example, consider the pre-defined "world class" move filter. Gnubg
> analyzes up to 8 plays within .16. For a given position, suppose that
> gnubg analyzes 4 plays (A, B, C, D) at 2-ply. Now, suppose that you want
> to redo the analysis using supremo. You can't do it without first
> re-analyzing A, B, C, and D at 0-ply (the supremo move filter says to
> analyze up to 16 plays within .32, using 0-ply evaluations to determine
> whether a play is within .32 of the best 0-ply play). These 0-ply
> evaluations may still be in the cache (I don't know precisely what
> evaluations are stored in the cache), but they won't be there if you save
> the .sgf file and open it again in a new gnubg for example (plays A, B, C,
> and D will only have 2-ply evaluations in the .sgf file).
> Snowie doesn't throw away lower-ply evaluations (or rollout
> information). It keeps all the information in the file, allowing the file
> to grow large. For example, if you select 20 plays, evaluate all of them
> at 3-ply, then re-evaluate them at 1-ply, then re-evaluate them all at
> 3-ply again, these last 3-ply evaluations will all display
> instantly. Similarly, if you roll them all out, you can cycle between
> 1-ply, 3-ply, and rollout displays instantly (Snowie doesn't have to take
> time to re-evaluate or re-rollout).
> At 04:52 AM 9/3/2009, Michael Depreli wrote:
> >I checked to see how Snowie 3 handles the "outside the new filter issue".
> >After reanalysis it drops the moves down to the level it would have been
> >had the larger filter been
> >run in the first place. At least that way it's consistent.
> >How come if gnubg has the analysis already stored from the narrower
> >filters it simply just can't analyse
> >any NEW moves that fall within the wider filters? It doesn't need to
> >reanalyze the others.
> > > Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 00:14:10 +0200
> > > Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] FW: Analysis Question
> > > From: address@hidden
> > > To: address@hidden
> > > CC: address@hidden; address@hidden
> > >
> > > Wouldn't work. Suppose that you have a half made analysis and then
> > > restart it. Since the move filter is not stored you would have to go
> > > through the match and re-analyse at plies N-1 to make sure that all
> > > moves are within the current filter. Time lost. And suppose that you
> > > some moves are now outside the new filter. Should they then be
> > > dropped?
> > >
> > > I guess that with a lot of jumping through hoops we could make this
> > > work and half way consistent, but is it really worth it? What we do
> > > now is at least consistent.
> > >
> > > Christian.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Michael Petch<address@hidden>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've been asked this by others. Personally I'm not sure I would
> > change how
> > > > it operates. If one knows this, its just as easy to clear the
> > analysis and
> > > > redo it. Just an opinion
> > > >
> > > > ------ Forwarded Message
> > > > From: "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
> > > > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:39:12 +0000
> > > > To: Michael Petch <address@hidden>
> > > > Subject: Analysis Question
> > > >
> > > > Hi Michael
> > > > I part analyzed a match then stopped it as I wanted to increase the move
> > > > filters.
> > > > Saved settings and re-ran the analysis.
> > > > Gnubg only analyzes at the larger filters from where the previous
> > analysis
> > > > finished.
> > > > Is there a reason for this?
> > > > Obviously it would be good if it added analysis for the extra moves
> > included
> > > > with the wider filters.
> > > >
Have more than one Hotmail account? Link them together to easily access both.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|