Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Arasan finds a new WAC bust

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 11:21:16 09/17/04

Go up one level in this thread


On September 17, 2004 at 11:42:38, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On September 16, 2004 at 19:48:59, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On September 16, 2004 at 18:18:13, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On September 16, 2004 at 12:52:43, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>
>>>>On September 16, 2004 at 07:37:01, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Your post is a good example of what happens when one jumps to a conclusion
>>>>>without taking the minimum amount of effort needed to understand what is really
>>>>>going on.
>>>>
>>>>I disagree completely, also with everyone else.
>>>
>>>Taking a _longer_ path to win is counter to a tactical test idea.  Clearly the
>>>move given is bad, because it just extends the game and reaches the same
>>>position a second time where the _real_ solution has to be played.  That is
>>>pointless...
>>>
>>>Otherwise a mate in 3 might turn into a mate in 40 if one side takes every
>>>opportunity to first repeat a second time before making progress...
>>
>>The pv shown by Arasan leads to a win.
>>If it lead to a draw or some other problem I would agree.
>
>You ask a student to add 2 + 2.
>
>He turns in the following:
>
>
>sqrt(100) / sqrt(25) + log10(100) and solves that and turns it in with his
>scratch paper.  Do you give him credit?  I do not.  There are a zillion longer
>ways to do something, such as a tree search in chess.  Tactical solutions are
>about the shortest way to win.  IE if there is a mate in 8 and a mate in 10, the
>correct answer is the mate in 8.

There are often strange solutions to test problems (e.g. tossing a queen due to
tablebase simplification).  If a chosen move wins 100% of the time, and the
program sees a clear solution, it is a winning move.  A winning move cannot be
said to be incorrect.  It has exactly the same value as a winning move to a
shorter solution.

>If there are two equal ways to win, then yes,
>either is correct.  But to intentionally repeat a position makes no sense and I
>give it a "zero" as it is pointless...
>
>If you want to count it right, that's ok, but I disagree and I won't.  Otherwise
>each WAC position probably has _multiple_ correct solutions...

If a problem is not proven all the way to win/loss/draw then it is really open.
If there are 10 moves that lead to a definite win, then all ten moves are
solution moves.  Including crazy moves like tossing a queen for a tablebase
simplification.



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.