Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 15:39:11 10/05/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 05, 2001 at 17:29:28, Slater Wold wrote: >On October 05, 2001 at 14:00:26, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On October 05, 2001 at 13:41:12, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On October 05, 2001 at 01:33:34, Slater Wold wrote: >>> >>>>On October 05, 2001 at 00:44:23, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>Clearly b6+ and Be3 both win. >>>>> >>>>>The only question I have is, does Kb3 also win, and if not, why not? >>>> >>>>I believe from your posts, and Crafty's eval, Kb3 also wins. Crafty shows a 4+ >>>>pawn advatange even with Kb3. But I don't believe it's the quickest way, or the >>>>best move. But I do believe it wins. >>>> >>>>It's like going to the grocery store. You have 3 means of getting there: >>>> >>>>Helicopter: b6+ >>>> >>>>Car: Be3 >>>> >>>>Walking: Kb3 >>>> >>>>Which would you choose? I have no doubts walking will get you there, as I have >>>>no doubt Kb3 wins. :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Slate >>> >>>This is sounding like a crappy problem that should either be ignored or set so >>>that all three of those moves are taken as solutions. >>> >>>The problem is that you can't tell in many cases if the program sees a win, so >>>you could give a wrong program credit for being right, and vice versa. >> >>I agree with your assessment. >>I think (in particular) some EPD chess problems are simply bad problems. >>For instance, there may be 3 ways to win, and so there are 3 solutions. But one >>of the 3 ways might look good in the first 6 plies, then look really bad for 4 >>more plies, and suddenly a solution appears through a surprise at ply 11. So, >>some program makes it 5 plies, and answers with "the right answer" at ply 5 with >>an eval of -192 and adds one to the score. >> >>Ideally, a test problem should: >>1. Not be stupendously easy. 3 ply solutions are not worth the bother. >>2. Not be stupendously hard. All day solutions are not pragmatically useful. >>3. Have a single *clear* answer that is found after a fairly difficult search >>of at least one second but not more than ten minutes. (There could be special >>case sets that take days to solve, but they won't help you to improve your chess >>program much. Only to know that you have improved it after the fact). >> >>The very best problems are those that can be proven -- the solution move wins >>and other moves lose. Probably, there are very few of these problems known. > >Dann if you believe all this, then I think it's time to move on from WAC. > >80% of WAC's problems can be solved in 3 seconds. 19% can be solved in 30 >seconds. And 1% cannot be solved in 100,000 seconds. > >Perhaps that 19% should be focused on, while the others are of no meaning, to >most anyway. > >GCP and I just went through his EPD, and any problem that had 2 solutions, was >removed. Any problem that had a transposition into the winning line, was >removed. There are probably still some left, but most have been removed. > >If anyone ever gets serious about it, I would donate my computer for 14 hours a >day to crunch positions, to come up with a "standard" EPD. WAC is not a >challenge anymore, and perhaps those developing chess programs now with the goal >of solving all the WAC problems, are not striving hard enough. It's like >running a mile in under an hour. That's *not* an accomplishment. > >IMO. > > > >Slate
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.