Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 14:47:04 10/17/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2001 at 10:47:19, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On October 17, 2001 at 04:50:23, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On October 17, 2001 at 00:02:15, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >> > >>You took away the hard positions and have left the easy positions >>in the testset? > >No, I took away the incorrect ones. There are only 4 positions that could >be more difficult but I have not tested the correctness yet. Those cannot >be solved by YACE or Crafty in 1/2 hour in a K2-400 mhz. > >Obviously, these positions are not a challenge for commercial engines >in the fastest hardware; but they are not meant to be. In fact, it is not easy >to find positions where the solution is _purely_ combinatorial and it is >challenge for top programs in top hardware. These positions are certainly useful >for amateur programs. >My idea is to get as many clean combinatorial positions as possible and later >I might categorize them. For instance, this test suite is not useful for you >but it is for me. >Anyway, the idea was to have solutions where the time could be measured. i.e, >more than one second but apparently they are easier than that. > >Can you please post the solution time of the ones that require more than a >second? I don't care for solution times. It's plydepths i care for. It's all 5 to 8 ply majority of positions You claimed that it was not an easy testset, but positions that solve at 5 to 8 ply are pretty easy. I got also 8 ply at world champs 1997. It's 4 years later now. >Regards, >Miguel
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.