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? >>> >>>-Don >> >> >>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 >>the >>full singular extension algorithm I used in Cray Blitz is wac230. >>Crafty >>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 >>end >>up with a hard but not impossible suite of around 300 positions that >>will >>be a good suite for a while... > >Great, I'm looking for a big but "clean" problem set that is >non-trivial. >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 >"classic" >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 >appreciated. > >- Don here's a better idea, to help. We need a couple of other programs to run 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. I 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 others have great difficulty with them. Others get 141 instantly while it takes 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.