Author: Mike S.
Date: 14:58:35 05/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 2000 at 16:21:01, blass uri wrote: >(...) >Unfortunately tactical test positions are usually sacrifices. >(...) >I think it is a good idea to generate a tactical test suite based on positions >from practical games and not based on finding sacrifices. I have some experience with program testing. There's a simple reason why most tactical tests are sacrifices: You need an unusual solution move, which would not be played unless the program sees the special reason, in other words, it has calculated the complete combination. When the solution is a silent, and quite normal move or maneuvre, this is much more difficult to judge upon. You would have to acquire an expertise for every single test position (and for each program tested), if it hasn't only played the awaited move, but if it has also really seen the reason and would play the correct continuation. With a sacrifice, there's (to 99,5%) no doubt about that. Therefore I think this "test character" of the solution move is needed, especially if the number of positions and program shall be higher that one or two... Btw., another alternative of this this test character is, when the program must avoid a capturing move which - under "normal" circumstances - would be the obvious continuation: Fischer - Unzicker [C97] Zürich, 1959 (after with the additional moves 33...b4 34.c4 for testing clarity) [D]4r2k/3n3p/2q3p1/2p1p1Q1/1pP1P3/1P6/5PP1/R2B2K1 b - - 0 34 *Not* 34...Qxe4?, because white could play 35.Bf3 Qf4 36.Qxf4 exf4 37.Bc6 Re7 38.Ra8+ Kg7 39.Ra7 and win a piece, as Fischer wrote in the 60 memorable. Regards, M.Scheidl Permanent Brain: http://members.surfeu.at/MScheidl
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.