[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Bug-gnubg] FW: Analysis Question

From: Michael Depreli
Subject: RE: [Bug-gnubg] FW: Analysis Question
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:30:39 +0000

Sorry you are correct I just compared the 2-ply file with the 4-ply file.
I was just thinking if the file sizes from snowie analysis are the same as with gnu then it must be possible :-)

My opinion when developing software is, if storage is getting cheaper, cpus more powerful and communication speeds faster,
you should include enhancements that take account of these facts.
Obviously taking it too far would alienate those that are still happy with their Pentium 3's and dial-up ;-)
I don't think you should shy away from increasing file sizes simply because people are too lazy to (or can't be bothered to learn) something free and straightforward as compressing files.

I'll check out your suggestion with regards to move filters thanks


> Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 07:34:06 -0400
> To: address@hidden
> From: address@hidden
> Subject: RE: [Bug-gnubg] FW: Analysis Question
> CC: address@hidden; address@hidden
> At 06:59 AM 9/3/2009, Michael Depreli wrote:
> >Example:
> >2-ply World Class 8/0.16 704kb
> >4-ply 8/0.06 @ 2-ply (skip 3-ply) 1222kb
> >
> >An increase but it hasn't ballooned to some colossal amount?
> >
> >Michael
> Did you manually construct the 1222 kb file, retaining all 0-ply and 2-ply
> evaluations (plus the 4-ply evaluations that gnubg performed)? Unless I'm
> missing something, it seems like it would take more than just a few minutes
> to manually create this file. Or is this an estimate of how large the file
> would be if gnubg were modified to retain all lower-ply evaluations (I
> assume that you're using "typical" filters, i.e. your 2-ply filter skips
> 1-ply pruning and your 4-ply filter skips 1-ply and 3-ply pruning).
> My opinion on file sizes is probably different than most people's
> opinions. E.g. I had a neutral opinion about eliminating "set analysis
> limit" last month, whereas others who posted were strongly in favor of
> removing it. Disk usage is cheap these days, but if users want to e-mail
> multiple match files to each other, it's not practical for many users to
> deal with files larger than a few megabytes (for a long
> match). (Compression is always possible, but many people don't know how or
> don't think to compress large files before e-mailing.)
> Btw, I don't know if this is a bug or a feature but I discovered a way for
> you to achieve what you want to do if you normally analyze with pruning off:
> 1. Start by analyzing with pruning off
> 2. Turn pruning on, re-analyze (the analysis should be instant because it's
> not re-evaluating anything)
> 3. Turn pruning back off, change the move filter (either more or less
> rigorous), and re-analyze; the new analysis seems to be based on the new
> move filter.
> I haven't tried to figure out what gnubg is doing, so I don't know if this
> is a bug or a feature.
> Chris

Have more than one Hotmail account? Link them together to easily access both.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]