Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Win at Chess

Author: Don Dailey

Date: 19:39:08 01/17/98

Go up one level in this thread

On January 17, 1998 at 18:25:22, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>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 sounds like a good idea to me.  We take 3 programs including
and throw out any problem that all 3 get in less than n seconds.  I will
suggest 20 seconds but am open to any value you might choose (as editor
of the set!)  Any problem proven to be troublesome (multiple solutions)
also chucked.

I will volunteer to be 1 tester but am not sure my program is good for
this.  I use very few extensions and may not solve problems quickly
so Cilkchess may not be appropriate as an "easyness" filter.

- Don

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.