Author: Amir Ban
Date: 23:53:37 01/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 1998 at 00:54:39, Don Dailey wrote:
>On January 19, 1998 at 22:31:53, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>
>>I think that everyone who's involved in this wants something different.
>>
>>I want a tactical suite that is challenging and doesn't take fifteen
>>hours to run.
>>
>>I think you want something that is more correct than this.
>>
>>bruce
>
>Ok everyone, let's reach a consensous. Fill out this form:
>
Ok, but please take netscape editor realities into account when
designing forms :)
>YES NO
>
x
>---- ---- 1. Should the program have a single clearly best move?
>
x Isn't this just the converse of 1 ? Should be all moves
of equal merit, not so much in term of eval as in terms
of deciding the game result in equally fast & safe ways.
>---- ---- 2. Can it have more than 1 clearly better than others?
>
x Yes. This suite doesn't have mate in 2's like WAC, and
one
man's two-plies search is another man's 5 minutes think.
>---- ---- 3. Should we KEEP the easy problems?
>
x The only moves that cannot be found by accident are
sacs, and I don't want a sac-only suite.
>---- ---- 4. Is it ok if programs tend to solve it by accident?
>
>
>Here's my answers:
>
>1. YES but don't care that much
>2. NO but don't care that much
>3. YES but don't care that much
>4. NO but I can cull them later
>
>
>I believe point 4 is the only one anyone feels strongly about but I'm
>not sure. If this is the case let's do the set without worrying about
>this point. Later we can decide without hurting a thing. I can cull
>these out later and if anyone else wants this they can either help me
>or wait for me to do it.
>
>But we've done good work so far and identified a bunch of bad problems
>so let's get moving! We should post a list of the whole set minus
>the bad problems once every day or two. Certainly we can start with
>the incorrect ones which we tend to agree on as Amir notes.
>
>P.S. Who is going to post the set (minus the cooks?) I can do this
> if no one else is going to. Ed volunteered to use his site
> as a repository and I concur.
>
Please go ahead. I assume you have noted all posted data. I didn't see
any conflicting opinions yet, but nobody has yet confirmed Dark
Thought's Rf4 cook for no. 29.
Amir
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.