Author: Amir Ban
Date: 05:22:11 04/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 1998 at 05:52:12, Jouni Uski wrote: >I wasn't quite sure about Exner's meaning, when posting suite. But I >run it with P90 and 5 min limit . ResultS: > >Fritz4.01 31 >Nimzo (paderborn) 31 >Nimzo 30 >Rebel 9 24 >Mchess 7 23 > >I also noticed, that some positions are obviously not correct. I'm also confused about this. What is special about these 50 positions ? What happened to the other original ECM positions ? Looking at the suite, I recognize several positions for which there were cooks, or were controversial, in the original "ECM Errata" discussion. For example: no. 131 (g4 was recognized as a cook), no. 228 (Bxg3 is an easy cook), no. 145 (Rf2 is better), and more. I'm worried that much of the information gathered in the first pass is getting lost. In the "ECM errata" thread, I took the positions, in several installments, and posted them for discussion. The positions that are not mentioned are those that Junior solves, or that I verified to be correct, so those not mentioned should be kept. The positions I did post had some problem with them, and I said what I think needs to be done with them (drop, add solution, or change). In some cases the forum (including Howard) showed me wrong. In almost all cases we reached consensus. I was thinking of the ECM98 posting as the editting of all this discussion. Howard, why not use the "ECM errata" threads, based on what was said in them ? If there are positions where the thread did not reach consensus, make the ruling yourself. It would be useful to have beside the full ECM98 suite a delta report vs. original ECM. Amir
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.