Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Win at Chess

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 15:25:22 01/17/98

Go up one level in this thread

On January 17, 1998 at 12:50:46, Don Dailey wrote:

>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

here's a better idea, to help.  We need a couple of other programs to
this suite.  Then we can "and" the three sets of results together and if
all get a set N in what we think is too little time, those get canned.
agree that a few that are easy for me will be hard for you, and vice
versa.  In win at chess, for example, I get 2 and 100 instantly, while
have great difficulty with them.  Others get 141 instantly while it
me 30 secs...

This page took 0.01 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.