Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: A Positional Testsuite (in EPD format)

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 21:57:51 07/31/02

Go up one level in this thread


On July 31, 2002 at 12:12:49, Tim Foden wrote:

>Thanks GCP for yet another test suite :)
>
>Here it is in EPD format (although of course it will probably be word wrapped by
>the message entry form):
>
>r3kn1r/pp2bpp1/2p1bn1p/q2p4/3P3B/2NBP2P/PPQ1NPP1/1K1R3R w kq - bm f3; c0 " -
>central pawnroller";

Movei prefers f4 0.41/10,0.38/11.

The score after f3 is -0.29/10(score is always for the side to move)

0/1


>2kr2nr/ppp2ppp/2b1pq2/8/1b1PP3/2NBBPP1/PP5P/R2QK2R b KQ - bm Ba5; c0 " - big
>pawn centres";

Movei prefers Ne7 -0.41/10

After Ba5 the score is 0.41/10 for Rf1
After Ne7 the score is 0.34/10 for a3

It means that Ba5 is probably not going to be found also at depth 11.

0/2
>2rq1rk1/pb3ppp/1p2p3/n7/3PP3/3B1N2/P2Q1PPP/3RR1K1 w - - bm d5; c0 " pv d5 exd5
>e5 - piece activity";

Rc1 0.40/9,0.35/10

After d5
Movei suggest exd5 exd5 0.00/9,0.04/10,0.29/11

After d5 exd5 e5 movei says Nc4 0.75/10,0.78/11

It seems that the line that is suggested is bad  because it simply lose a pawn
for no compensation.

Movei evaluates mobility and it see no compensation.

0/3


>r1bqr1kb/pp5p/4ppp1/2pPP3/2P2P2/8/P2QB1PP/1RB1K2R w K - bm f5; c0 " - cramping
>black";

Ba3 -0.45/9,-0.39/10

after f5
gxf5 0.66/8,0.82/9,0.83/10

0/4
>1r2q1k1/p1rn3p/1pp1pp2/P2n4/1P1P4/Q4N2/5PPP/2RR1BK1 w - - bm b5; c0 " - minority
>attack/minor advantages";

Bc4 0.50/9,0.50/10

After b5

cxb5 -0.46/10,-0.46/11

0/5

>r2q1rk1/pppnb1pp/8/3P1p2/N1PQ4/8/PP2B1PP/R4RK1 b - - bm b5; c0 " - crippling
>majority";

Bf6 0.19/9,0.25/10

After b5

cxb5 0.79/8,0.62/9,0.69/10(scores always for the side to move)


0/6

>r3rbk1/1bqn1ppp/pp1ppn2/8/2PNP3/2N1BP2/PP1Q2PP/2RR1BK1 w - - bm b4; c0 " -
>activating majority";

g4 0.52/9,0.42/10

after b4

d5 -0.21/8,-0.26/9,-0.26/10

0/7

>r1bq1rk1/1pp1bppp/p1p5/2n1P3/3N4/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQR1K1 b - - bm f5; c0 " -
>blockading to restrict activity";

The first correct position

f5 -0.40/9,-0.42/10,-0.33/11

1/8

>r2qr1k1/pp3pbp/n5p1/2pP1b2/2Q1nB2/2N2N2/PP2BPPP/3R1RK1 w - - bm Nb5; c0 " -
>covering d6 (preventing blocade)";

Bd3 0.01/10, 0.02/11

Nb5 is losing a pawn when compensation is not enough

Bxb2 0.71/8,0.73/9,0.43/10

1/9

>r3k2r/pp1bb1pp/1q2pn2/3pB3/1P6/2PB4/P4PPP/RN1Q1RK1 w kq - bm Nd2; c0 " -
>controlling central squares";

solved at small depth but movei changes it's mind later.

g4 0.22/9,0.23/10,0.26/11

After Nd2 black can castle
0-0 -0.15/8,-0.13/9,-0.21/10

1/10
>r3k2r/pppqnppp/2n1b3/3p4/3P1B2/2PB1N1P/P1P2PP1/R2Q1RK1 b kq - bm f6; c0 " -
>restricting piece play";

Movei may choose f6 at small depth but changes it's mind later.
It suggests b6 -0.14/10,-0.11/11

after f6 Qe2 0.18/9,0.17/10

1/11
>3r2nr/1kp3pp/pp1bbp2/P1p5/4P3/1NN1BP2/1PP3PP/R2R2K1 w - - bm e5; c0 " - quick
>development and open lines for knight pairs";

axb6 0.65/9,0.46/10,0.46/11,0.39/12

After e5
fxe5 -0.12/10,-0.12/11,-0.58/12
Be7 -0.56/12
I suspect that movei may find e5 if I give it more time but it got only 2
minutes.

1/12.

>r2qnrk1/p2p3p/bpn1p1p1/5p2/2PPPP2/P2BB1N1/6PP/R2Q1RK1 b - - bm d5; c0 " -
>exposing weak squares";

Nd6 -0.20/10,-0.09/11

After d5 cxd5 0.25/10,0.19/11

1/13

>1r2k2r/4bpp1/p2pbN1p/1p2p3/4P1P1/P3BP2/1PPq3P/1K1R1B1R b k - bm gxf6; c0 " -
>very deep weakness in white pawn structure";

Bxf6 -0.12/10,-0.18/11

After gxf6 Rxd2 0.51/10,0.44/11,0.42/12

1/14

>1r2k2r/4bp2/p2pbp2/1p2p3/4P1P1/P3B3/1PPR3P/1K3BR1 b k - bm Bc4; c0 " - bad
>bishops protect good pawns";

Rd8 -0.35/10,-0.15/11

After Bc4
b3 0.37/11

1/15

>At 30s/position GLC2.18 currently has a score of.... 0/10  :)
>
>Cheers, Tim.

Movei has only 1/10 and 1/15.

I suspect that most of the positions are not correct.
I expect programs to do better with more time in a good positional test suite.

If this is not the case it means that the test is bad.



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.