Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Win at Chess

Author: Don Dailey

Date: 09:50:46 01/17/98

Go up one level in this thread

On January 16, 1998 at 17:42:01, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On January 16, 1998 at 17:17:40, Don Dailey wrote:
>>Which problems in win at chess have multiple solutions or cooks?
>>Can we make a more useful set by getting rid of these and all
>>the ones that solve instantly even with weak programs?  Has
>>someone done this?
>I can post 'em...  but I really think WAC has become an antique...  it
>is too easy.  The only problem I don't see any way of solving without
>full singular extension algorithm I used in Cray Blitz is wac230.
>simply won't see this one.  The other 299 are not that difficult.  If we
>set a 10 second limit and toss out the ones that can be found there, we
>end up with maybe 15 or so...
>I'm working on the ECM suite, which is way too big.  But I'm going to
>up with a hard but not impossible suite of around 300 positions that
>be a good suite for a while...

Great, I'm looking for a big but "clean" problem set that is
We need more of these.   But how are you going to judge what
is a hard but not impossible suite?   They may be hard for Crafty but
impossible for another program or visa versa.

I have a suggestion you might consider.
Just get rid of all the ambiguous problems and cooks etc.  Of the
remaining problems cull the easy ones out by "classic" depth.  Something
like: do not include problems solved in less that 6 ply using the
full width search with check extensions only.

I would also like to suggest we include classic depth information with
the problems.  Classic depth is:

   1) Full width search
   2) Check extensions only
   3) Classic quies search
      A) only captures
      B) capture checks resolved
      C) unlimited depth.
   4) Assume no tactical knowldege (like square of pawn, endgame db's)
   5) 1,3,3,5,9  material evaluation (or something a little better
      if agreed on.)

This info is usually very easy to calculate if you understand the
problem and is extremely useful because it tells you:

   1) Is selectivity missing anything?
   2) What are my extensions picking up?
   3) What is my tactical knowledge stuff getting me?

A program could be easily modified to calculate the info or it could
be done manually.

Anyway, just a humble suggestion, anything you share with us will be

- Don

This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.