Author: Bernhard Bauer
Date: 00:51:07 09/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 11, 2001 at 14:04:31, Dann Corbit wrote: >On September 11, 2001 at 08:34:53, Bernhard Bauer wrote: > >>On September 11, 2001 at 07:44:37, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On September 11, 2001 at 03:39:52, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >>> >>>>BTW testing with WAC will not lead to any progress! >>> >>>Yes and no. It is good for tuning extensions, as it's >>>all simple tactics. >>> >>>-- >>>GCP >> >>Yes it's mostly about simple tactics - mate in 3,4,5 moves. >>Tuning your program for wac will not help for real live positions, >>so it' worthless, but some programmers are so much used to it, they can't stop >>it. And it's so fast. But it's useless. You'd better take 5 well known positions >>and run your program against them. > >There are very few close checkmates. >Programs that score 290+ in WAC at 5 seconds per position are all powerhouses >Programs that score below 250 at 5 seconds all suck. >Draw your own conclusions. Due to your comments I had a closer look at WAC. Running yace on WAC for 1 sec on a P3-450MHz gives 269 solved which is 90%. Yace found at that run 71 mates which is 24%. There are 16 mate in 2 22 mate in 3 15 mate in 4 11 mate in 5 Which means there are 64 mate in 5 or less. While it's usefull for a human to solve the same type of position again and again it doesn't make much sense for a program. Your powerhouses which solve 290+ deal mostly with the remaining 10 positions which means 3.3%. If you use another test like bt2630 you deal with about 20 of 30 positions which is more IMHO. BTW I doubt that not using null move or using null move with R=2 or R=3 will give much difference when running for very short times like your 5 sec. So I think the wac test as a test for programs may have been usefull in the beginning of chess programming - but now it is obsolete. Kind regards Bernhard
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.