Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:44:33 10/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2001 at 19:24:55, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: for me non-easy positions solution times are measured in minutes. Grasz2002 for example the level most likely will be 3 minutes a move. So i don't care whether some positions are found in 20 seconds or 30 seconds or 2 seconds or 5 seconds. I do not see that difference. All i see whether you make it (at new hardware) within 10 minutes, as first moves out of book diep uses around that time a move, and with filled hashtables 10 minutes is a good time to test at. Of course you don't show up there with a laptop from 10 years ago! >On October 17, 2001 at 17:47:04, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>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. > >But I do care, that is why I asked you. >Of course, if you do not want to post them it is fine. > >>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 do not claim anything, I am sharing the positions that are correct that will >be eventually useful for me. >Easy is a very relative term. What I tried to do is to eliminate the positions >that are "too" easy. Those are the positions that are solved in microseconds, as >in WAC, when you cannot even get the time measured accurately. > >Of course, if you have a top engine in top hardware some positions might fall >under a second. > >Miguel > > > > > >> >>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.