Author: Don Dailey
Date: 00:39:23 01/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 1998 at 18:50:20, Amir Ban wrote:
>
>Don,
>
>1. I'm ok with ECM98.
>
>2. Good to see general consensus on the data, but I think you are too
>eager to throw out on the basis of "flakiness". We really can't expect
>things to stabilize at ply 1, and when we have a move that is clearly
>better in the longer run, we shouldn't hesitate to say it is the
>solution (and to clearly say that any others are wrong). I don't know
>how many of the other 81 would pass your rigid criteria ...
>
>3. Who's coordinating this ? I nominate Bruce on the grounds that he has
>the best result so far.
>
>Amir
Hi guys,
I still had 302 positions that passed ALL my criteria. Your programs
would flunk out a few more but since everyone will disagree on easiness
we will get a few back. I think we could still end up with at least
200 that pass my "rigid" criteria.
I won't complain if you want to include what I'm calling "flaky"
problems (as long as they are clearly best), but at least let me
make my case for being more selective before you outvote me!
If we make an effort to have a clean set then:
1) You can shorten your test times by stopping on solution.
2) If you run to 2 minutes and stop you have to also either
examine each position or set up scoring information to
prove you would not have changed your mind had the set
continued.
3) Running the program longer should guarantee a better solution
count but this doesn't happen with flaky problems.
Please consider my proposal. If you don't like it, that's ok, I can
work with this kind of set too.
- 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.