Author: J. Wesley Cleveland
Date: 13:57:30 05/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2002 at 13:59:40, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On May 06, 2002 at 04:30:20, Uri Blass wrote: > >>>[D]2kr2r1/2pqbp1p/p1n1b3/1P1pP3/4n3/1BP1BN2/1P4PP/RN1Q1RK1 b - - acd 14; acn >>>872957292; acs 1799; bm Bh3; ce 0; id "ECM.1426"; pv Bh3 Ne1 Bxg2 Nxg2 Rxg2+ >>>Kxg2 Rg8+ Kh1 Ng3+ Kg1 Ne4+ Kh1; >> >>Another positional problem: > >Why do you think is a positional problem? I think it is tactical but deep. >Anyway, In general I do not like this kind of positions because many programs >find the move because they like a draw (perpetual), when the position is a win. >That would score better than a program that is looking for a win (because >positionally thinks it is better) but still did not find how to win. >For instance, it was shown that there are other ways to get a draw score in this >position. It was discussed some time ago. People thought there were some cooks >because they believed that the goal was a draw. > >In other words, a test like this might introduce some noise and should not be >present in a very high quality test suite, IMHO. I think what is needed is some mechanism where a program needs not only to find the move, but also have a high enough score to get the problem right.
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.