Author: Howard Exner
Date: 23:48:54 04/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 26, 1998 at 08:22:11, Amir Ban wrote:
>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.
I have been using the threads (errata ones and others) for this effort.
There was a thread at the start of this project that contained a list of
about
400 positions. I took that post, based on the responses to it, to be the
starting point - ie: the others in my interpretation were deleted
because they
were too easy. If this was an error on my part that would explain why a
great
many of the ones you were expecting are simply not there. This part of
the
assembling of positions however can be easily remedied.
I definitely do not want to "re-invent the wheel" since I know how time
consuming and valuable those errata posts are. I have made myself a
master list
of the positions contained in them. Your 3 examples would suggest
otherwise so
I will explain.
#131 - you mentioned g4 would transpose
- Ernst followed up with his program playing g4 initially but then
switching to c5.
- I took this exchange from you two as a clue to investigate the
two key moves. I found that the original c5 on a longer search kept
rising in value
while the g4 line reached a plateau.
#145 - basically the same as above. A longer search was showing a better
score for the original Bd4+(5.70) than Rf2(4.36). I just could not see
how Rf2 was
better. Here though is a case where both are so obvsiously winning that
the
position will be too easy (allowing both moves as key ones).
# 228 - this one I did miss, but again will be too easy given both
solutions.
The major question I have now is should I include all the positions not
mentioned in the errata threads?
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.