Author: Howard Exner
Date: 08:34:38 05/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 01, 1998 at 14:38:14, Don Dailey wrote: >Hi everyone, > >Howard asked me to finish the process of redacting the ECM set. Since >I now have plenty of spare time I am willing to do this, if everyone >agree's. I emailed this request of Don. This is the email:* *I was going to post this suggestion on CCC but thought it might be *best to email you first. Now that the bulk of the broken positions *have been tossed out the next phase seems to be how to handle the *removal of the easy positions. I felt competent in dealing with *finding the deletition candidates but not too comfortable with the *handling of how to remove the easy ones. Basically I'm wondering if I *could pass the baton back to you. I think you would do a great job in *co-ordinating this. I was going to post something like, "would someone *like to take over the next phase of removing the easy ones *...blah,blah,blah. Thought I'd run it by you first. *If you decide to do this I could then simply post in CCC that I *requested it or even just post this email on the site. I will still *remain interested in the suite in terms of why or why not a key move *is chosen. > >I suggest that we leave the easy problems in the set. The consensous >seems to be the same. There is no harm in having a few easy ones and >some of us have expressed some concern that the elimination process >could be subject to problems. I agree with this viewpoint. Or there is the possibility of keeping ECM98 and have a subset of this as well. I still recall the seeds of this project from Bob and Ernst and there desire to remove the easy ones common to all programs. But I guess each person can simply keep their own subset of ECM98 rather than create a sort of "universal" one. > >The main thing to address is the correctness of the set as it stands >now. If anyone finds or suspects errors, let's post this and open it >up for discussion. To summarize our criteria for inclusion, each >position should have the following characteristics (please correct me >if I'm wrong on what was agreed to): > >A) Solution should be correct. (obviously) > >B) Solution should not be an obvious move that any program has > some chance of playing even if it doesn't really understand the > idea. On this point B I recognized some key moves as being played to achieve a draw rather than seeing deeper that they are winning. Botvinnik's Ba3 against Capablanca comes to mind. Would this be the kind of example you are referring to? > >C) All solutions should be given. It's ok to have multiple solutions > if they all involve a winning plan. Conversely, non-solutions > should change the game theoretic outcome with perfect play. > >Later on, if anyone is interested, we can sort the set by difficulty. >This can be approximated by having n programs sort them individually >and then combining the results in some fashion such as average, >median, worst case ranking or some other method. We can discuss this >later if anyone feels it is worth persuing. > >- Don
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.