Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 10:11:40 09/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2001 at 13:05:08, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >Like many others here, I use a standard testset >for testing improvements and doing regression >testing to my engine. > >So far WAC has been adequate, but as you all >know it has two annoying problems, namely that >over 2/3 of the problems are solved by 2 ply >searches and hence useless, and the level of >most of the others isn't very hard either with >nowadays CPU's. > >ECM could have been better, but it's very big >(over 800 positions) and contains a lot of garbage. > >Based on some parts of ECM I got from Dann's >ftp and a day with Goliath Light, Hiarcs and >my common sense I filtered 200 positions of >varying difficulty which have, as far as I could >tell and verify, correct solutions. >The suite is meant for relatively quick testing >of improvements and/or regressions. The recommended >time is 10 seconds per position. Running all >positions takes a little over half an hour. It >is what I currently use instead of WAC. > >I would appreciate feedback about the positions, >especially if you think there is an incorrect >or dual soltion. Performance data of other amateur >or professional programs is appreciated too. >My latest Sjeng gets 80/200 at 10s on an Athlon 1000. Here are my results on one processor of a Quad Xeon 450: Results: <Sec Solved Total ---- ------ ------ 1 69 69 2 25 94 3 12 106 4 8 114 5 14 128 6 3 131 7 7 138 8 2 140 9 3 143 143 problems solved. 58 problems unsolved.
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.