Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Win at Chess

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 19:57:13 01/17/98

Go up one level in this thread


On January 17, 1998 at 22:39:08, Don Dailey wrote:

>
>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

I don't consider Crafty a great "finder" either.  I don't spend a lot
of time trying to go deep.  However, one other issue:  I want positions
that don't have multiple solutions.  And I don't want obtuse positions
where you can either win the queen or mate.  I want my program to find
winning moves.  I'd claim that if I win your queen, I'm probably going
to
win the game just as surely as if I find a mate.  I found a few ECM
positions that fit that. ie one with a +16 eval but it's wrong.  I'm
not wanting this to be a deep mate suite, but simply one where there is
one obviously best move...

your 20 second limit sounds high... although it might be ok...  IE that
could leave us with a suite that takes a while to run.  I ran the entire
thing at 20 seconds and got something like 569 right I believe.  Plus
another
10-15 I'd argue about.  But that would eliminate a big chunk.  But would
leave us with a suite of 300 that would produce a 0 for most programs at
times < 20 seconds.  Not bad, but 5 hours to run 'em at 60 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.