Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 17:15:16 11/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2000 at 17:16:25, Ed Schröder wrote: >On November 28, 2000 at 14:38:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>I personally don't feel very "safe" if my program is doing something good for >>the completely wrong reason(s) it found... yes, I like to see it do the right >>thing, period. But those "wrong reason" cases cause me to remember that for >>every right move, wrong reason, there will also be wrong move, wrong reason >>cases as well. > >Rebel from the start position will frequently switch from 1.d4 to >1.e4 > >Does it play 1.e4 or 1.d4 for the wrong reason? There's no correct answer so this isn't the same thing. A better case might be LCT I position 23: [D]8/5Bp1/4P3/6pP/1b1k1P2/5K2/8/8 w - - 0 1 The key is Kg4 but fxg5 gets a similar score from my program, and it's random which one it will choose in any iteration. It's seeing some of what is going on, but the program is a little bit too hard, and it's hit or miss whether a given version will find this, find it and switch away, switch back and forth several times, or fail to find it. I would be dishonest if I said my program "solves" this under any conditions, although if I were reporting scores for LCT 1 I would have no problem with reporting a "success" for this one as long as the rules allowed for that. Some test suites try to get you to look at the PV and see that you are finding the move for the right reasons, but this is tedious. It's easier to just do time until find-and-hold. I don't tune for test suites. I test against ECM and LCT 1 every day, so I know that I'm not losing tactical zip, so I know that I'm not doing something drastically weird, and so I can see the long-term effects of my changes upon node rate and search depth. bruce
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.