I'm dragging up an old thread.
For the past few months I've been doing a bit of database programming. The idea is to compare flat (not fences or hurdles) pedigrees to race results.
At this stage I have not done the comparison, but I have the basics on the pedigree side.
I have a program that analyses pedigrees. I can load any number of horses, start it, and come back later for the results.
I'll be tinkering with it a little, adding bits and pieces, putting in timing to find slow spots, and rewriting to speed things.
What gave me a boost was a poster asked me by PM to look at the Tattersalls February catalogue. It has 488 lots.
I could look at each lot on screen in my commercial pedigree program (TesioPower) and pick out the best imo.
Instead I decided to put in some extra effort to finish the database program.
It analysed the 488 Tattersalls lots in 44.53 seconds or approx 0.9 seconds a horse.
That was on my slow seven year old PC.
I bought a new PC in November and that runs things in 32% of the time of the old PC, so it will analyse a horse pedigree in under 0.3 of a second.
First it gathers the 126 ancestors in the first six generations (2,4,8,16,32,64), then analyses them.
Fwiw in a sales catalogue they print the first three generations (14 ancestors).
Add new features to the six generation analysis (group winners, Derby winners, group winner producer).
Compare the analysis to race performance.
Give up if no link found between pedigree and performance
, or makes changes.
My next plan will be to analyse 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 generations. This should be easy as I only have to increase the size of the ancestor database.
Of course if I go from 6 generations from 7 generations the data doubles.
A 12 generation analysis is much bigger (and slower) than a 6 generation, 8,190 horses v 126 horses, 65 times the size.
When running the program a byproduct is it gave some strange results for a few horses, many in the 1800s.
These are horses with incomplete pedigrees (some of these are half-bred non-thoroughbred).
I go back, fix the data if I can, and run it again.
The reason to test the program against so many pedigrees if to test it against complex pedigrees.
I am very interested in full siblings in pedigrees
(horses with same sire and dam e.g. sires Sadler's Wells and Fairy King are both by the sire Northern Dancer out of the dam Fairy Bridge).
And I look for 3/4, 7/8 siblings.
Examples of recent 3/4 siblings are:
Frankel; Highland Reel; Intello; Roderic O'Connor; Sir Isaac Newton; Teofilo, all by Galileo out of a Danehill dam.
Below is a summary decade by decade of full siblings in 6 generation pedigrees from 1800 to now.
It gives an indication that horses were much more closely inbred in the past, probably because you walked your sire to a local mare.
(full siblings A and B: one of horse A, and four of horse B is counted as five)
Horse populations in the early 1800s stayed in the same area (as did humans).
When trains were invented (1830s) you could travel your mare.
Motor transport (1890s) made travel even easier.
Now you can fly the mare or stallion anywhere.
In the table below you will see a spike in full siblings in pedigrees in the 1860s and 1870s.
My guess is brothers Stockwell (1849) ("the emperor of stallions") and Rataplan (1850) are heavily involved.
Galileo traces back in direct male line to Stockwell, as does almost everything else running today.
The low full sibling numbers for the 1990, 2000s, 2010s might be because many of these are low quality running horses, not breeding horses.
| ||381171|| ||3.4|