Author: Jouni Uski
Date: 01:15:12 09/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 12, 2001 at 03:51:07, Bernhard Bauer wrote: >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beginning of chess programming - but now it is obsolete.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 Have You may be replaced Crafty by Yace as most used analysis engine? I think Yace is very good in tactical and endgame positions, may be up to all commercial Chessbase engines! Of course Crafty is excellent in endgame analysis, but in tactical positions there is much faster engines. Jouni
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.