Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:05:35 09/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2001 at 17:53:16, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 18, 2001 at 17:48:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>WAC is at least tactical, and I use it a lot because I can do the entire test >>in a few minutes. And all I care about is "did I break something, or did I >>make something a bit better/faster?" Positional test positions are harder to >>come by... > >This one should be fully tactical too. It's 1/3 less positions >than WAC so it runs faster. > >And the really neat thing: it shows much more response to changes. > >My recent set of changes brought my program from 272 to 279 on WAC, >so thats 7 on 300 more. > >With this set I get from 69 to 80. Thats 11 more on 200 positions. I think the reason for that is that WAC is a somewhat exponential set. About 100 are so easy that most programs will solve them instantly. The second hundred are also well under one second. Of the remaining 100, 50 are quite easy and will be solved by all programs. In the last 50, only ten or so will take more than 2 seconds. In that last ten, difficulty varies from quite easy (still solved in under 5 seconds by any very strong program) to incredibly difficult (WAC.230). In other words, it's preschool to PhD, with mostly grade school questions, and then the final questions are about Einstein's tensor equations, and you have to make a hypothesis about lambda that explains the most recent findings about the accelerated expansion of the universe. ;-) Maybe it would be better to segment test suites into: 1. Easy 2. Hard 3. Nobody can solve it yet
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.