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? >>>> >>>>-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 sounds like a good idea to me. We take 3 programs including Crafty, 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) is 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, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.