Author: Don Dailey
Date: 00:59:26 01/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
Ok Bruce, I can send you my positions. You use an editor? Here is a good way (maybe yours is better) to process them which is painless: given 2 normal epd sets: full_set.epd remove_set.epd cat full_set.epd remove_set.epd | sort | uniq -u > final_set.epd Now everyone could send you their positions as epd (which is the most natural way I think) and you could instantly integrate changes. Can I just send you my 20 seo solved as EPD? I'm not going to build the table like you did. (I don't use an editor, I use: cat > filename :-) - Don On January 19, 1998 at 02:43:16, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On January 18, 1998 at 17:56:48, Don Dailey wrote: > >>I discovered 126 "flaky" problems after correcting a bug in >>my flake test routine. I recommend these all be taken out >>because they imply ambiguous solutions. The ones you guy's >>find also should be taken out. > >No, this is not right. You'll often have a case where the key looks >good, shifts away for a while, then comes back for good, with a nice >score. > >Heck, a move can appear to be a winning capture according to a SEE, but >really be a losing capture because something is pinned, and as a >consequence show up as a correct solution at ply 1 (since it is the >first move searched), shift away later in ply 1, and come back when it's >apparent that it is OK to go down material in this position. > >These cases can be handled by running the suite with decent amount of >time, and not exiting until the end of the test. > >Just because a program evaluates a position as +2, then finds another +3 >move, when the original move is really a mate in 8, is no reason to >discard the problem. Just let it go longer and it should shift back, >and you get a crappy solution time on this, and have something to fix, >which is the point of this exercise. > >I don't think it is necessary to look for cooks yet, either. > >The first pass should simply delete problems that are solved by >consensus. It's probably a good idea to just delete everything that all >three of you guys solve in under 20 seconds. > >If you want mine, here they are: > >8 11 14 16 18 19 28 29 35 43 49 51 54 60 63 66 68 71 75 76 78 80 81 82 >84 87 91 99 109 112 115 117 119 123 128 130 131 135 137 138 142 144 145 >146 147 148 153 155 159 160 161 162 180 182 186 187 190 191 196 198 201 >202 206 209 211 212 213 215 227 228 231 237 247 250 251 259 262 266 267 >270 271 274 277 280 286 287 289 291 292 297 300 302 310 311 312 313 315 >316 318 321 327 330 332 335 336 337 338 339 345 348 349 353 354 355 356 >357 358 360 361 366 367 370 371 373 375 376 377 379 390 394 395 396 397 >398 399 401 402 406 410 412 416 419 420 422 424 427 433 434 438 439 440 >443 445 447 459 460 463 464 465 467 468 469 470 472 474 475 476 482 485 >488 489 491 492 494 497 498 499 500 501 503 504 505 507 510 512 516 519 >525 533 539 544 551 553 557 560 561 562 565 566 569 579 580 582 587 589 >592 593 594 595 597 598 600 601 603 605 607 608 610 613 614 615 616 617 >621 623 624 627 629 634 635 636 637 640 644 646 647 648 652 653 654 659 >663 665 666 667 672 673 674 675 676 677 679 680 681 683 684 685 686 687 >688 690 691 692 693 696 697 698 699 701 706 709 712 713 714 715 716 718 >719 721 722 725 726 727 728 730 733 734 735 736 740 742 744 745 750 754 >755 756 761 762 764 766 767 769 770 771 772 773 774 776 779 780 785 789 >790 791 792 795 796 799 801 803 804 805 810 811 814 815 816 818 822 824 >825 826 827 829 830 831 832 833 834 836 837 841 842 843 845 846 852 853 >854 856 858 860 861 864 866 867 868 872 875 877 878 879 > >These are all the problems at at least one version of my program has >failed to solve in the past few months, at 20 seconds per position. >There should be 363 of them. If this is too many, I can generate the >same list for my most recent versions. > >bruce
This page took 0 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.