nicklas1.tst: all these tests should pass
nicklas2.tst: 9x9 games where gnugo should do better.
nicklas3.tst: 9x9 games with harder problems
nicklas4.tst: 19x19 games (simple)
nicklas5.tst: 19x19 games (harder)


			     NICKLAS2.TST

#102: LOW PRIORITY; DIFFICULTY HARD; DEFER
gnugo --quiet -l niclas1.sgf -L29 -t

    This is not as clear cut as it may seem. 2.7.228 values the endgame 
    move at A7 to 6.66 points which seems about correct. The fact that 
    white D4 threatens both to cut off E5-F6 and to capture D3 through 
    a chain of threats (which is what happens in the game) is not that
    easy to understand.  A more general atari_atari module could 
    perhaps see it, but we are still far from that.  I think this test
    should be in nicklas3.tst (harder problems).


#601: ??? PRIORITY; DIFFICULTY EASY/HARD; TUNING

    This test illustrates a general weakness of GNU Go: It's poor 
    ability to defend its borders.  White can enter blacks domains or
    capture the E8 group. In the latter case, whites first move is
    a sacrifice and the capture happens through a chain of threats.


#701 ??? PRIORITY; DIFFICULTY UNKNOWN; SEMEAI

    This is a very good test case for a semeai module. Black F1 threatens
    to live and creates all the necessary liberties to win the semai.


#902 

    The only way to live is to attack a neighbour dragon, e.g. the one
    at F8. But does the owl code really do this by default?


