Author: Robert Henry Durrett
Date: 11:29:40 06/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2002 at 14:19:21, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 21, 2002 at 09:56:27, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>I think the problem of most composed positions is that they >>usually present very unusual positions which are exceptions to >>a general rule and such. >> >>In practise, those positions won't happen, and the general >>rule (which is the one that is in the chessprogram) will work. > >However, the crazy composed positions have two big advantages: >1. They are great fun (I wonder where leo has gone)? >2. They stress possibilities (e.g. your move generator cannot handle more than >150 generated moves and a position has 218 so BOOM. Better to find out now than >in a WMCCC[1]). > >[1] Murphy's law *always* surfaces at these contests. If you have a bad book >line, it will surface. If you have a serious bug, it will present itself. Perhaps you could even carry this idea one step further: Those engine designers who are lucky enough to also be strong chessplayers might be sufficiently creative and innovative, chesswise, to come up with test positions which are "customized" to test new subroutines, algorithms, coding, or whatever. The nice thing about difficult composed problems published in the open literature is that they, perhaps, likely will present problems for the engine which the programmer did not forsee. They may be "rude surprises." Are there any chess engine designers/developers who are also "chess problem enthusiasts," proficient at composing and solving chess problems? Bob D.
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.