Author: Howard Exner
Date: 15:54:59 04/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 1998 at 15:52:28, Amir Ban wrote: >On April 28, 1998 at 15:00:07, Howard Exner wrote: > > >>How do the other particpants in this venture feel about these >>deletions? I'm thinking if we miss a few that no real harm is done. >>Fixing chess problems is no small task at any level. >>Once this "deletion thread" runs its course I'll post the >>entire modified set to Manfred and ICD. >> > >I only did a few spot checks. I notice you threw out all or many of the >positions that had side solutions. I felt that positions like 63 & 96 >which are simple transpositions should be kept, and also positions which >have a side solution that is reasonably hard or interesting. I thought these positions with two key moves (or transpositions) could be dropped on the grounds that they would be too easy to solve. Some of the older posts indicated that in my understanding of them. These of course can remain in the suite also. One way to decide on what to keep in the suite would be to have you and Bruce do the quick kind of spot check on these deletion candidates and then just keep the ones that either feels should remain. Not a vote but a quick inclusion of positions that either (or Bob,Ernst,Don) have a strong opinion about. That's why I thought I'd leave this deletion list up for awhile. My interpretation of the data from the Errata posts will no doubt vary from what someone else would have come up with in terms of such a list of "candidate deletions". I factored in the notion of a "clean set" of positions which was communicated by some and may be leaning more in that direction. But at least I'm beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel for this mammoth task of removing suspect positions. > >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.