Author: Don Dailey
Date: 11:28:32 01/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Bob, Everything you said sounds good to me. I like Bruce's idea of doing a first pass to eliminate the easy ones, then we are working with a smaller set instead of almost a thousand. The 3 or 4 of us will quickly agree on "too easy" and get it down quickly to a manageble number. I just boosted my score in the full ECM simply by changing the scoring program! It turns out I was throwing away positions that I would get in less than 20 seconds because I would lose them at say 50 seconds or something. All I have to do is quit at the 20 second mark and my score jumped up 36 problems! I don't have the faith in this testing method you guy's do. It's probably the only reasonable way to run a sloppy set though. - Don On January 19, 1998 at 13:30:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 19, 1998 at 03:39:23, Don Dailey wrote: > >>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 > > >the only thing I want to see is a suite where each position has a clear >solution, whether it be hard or easy, but where the solution move is not >something that might show up "just because". IE the solution should be >a tactical solution that requires a move that wouldn't normally be >played, >so we can compare apples to apples. The position Bruce mentioned from >the >BK test is but one example. Many people have, over the years, reported >WAC results where they simply found the best move positionally without >having any idea that it ends up winning material or mating. I'd like to >see our suite produce unambiguous results... > > >I'd like to suggest the following way to get this started: > >lets take the first 100 positions to begin with. If we all agree that >10 seconds is too easy, that's fine by me. If we'd rather look at them >more carefully and eliminate the 3-4 ply solutions instead, it doesn't >matter. But first, let's eliminate the easy ones. After we agree on >those, then lets eliminate the ambiguous ones, or the ones with too many >solutions, or the ones that we can't confirm that the solution is really >best, etc... > >I will tally the results. I'd like to see Bruce do the same. Then we >can compare notes to be sure neither missed a comment by someone. When >we >reduce the first 100 to N, then we move to the next 100. 100 seems >managable, >without producing huge posts. > >I'd also suggest we keep the FEN out of here. I have the entire suite >already as does Bruce. It would save time/space to simply refer to the >position by number, assuming we all have the same ECM suite from onenet. > >I'm going to check mine now and I will post a list of the ones I think >are *not* too easy, to make my list short. We can "or" our lists if >you'd >like, and discuss why I like one and not another, and do the same for >your >results as well. I suspect the first 100 will go faster than the rest >because I get 82 of them in 20 seconds, but only 569 of the whole set in >that time. So I obviously miss many more later on...
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.