Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: WACNEW 40% less fails when Sharper get 12x the time

Author: Daniel Clausen

Date: 03:00:30 03/17/03

Go up one level in this thread

On March 17, 2003 at 05:47:29, Albert Bertilsson wrote:

>Since Uri pointed out that my PV was rotten I fixed that to see what happens.
>I picked out all 105 positions that failed when running for 5 seconds and
>increased the time to 60 seconds.
>The results was quite nice, some 40 positions where solved!
>The main problem is the conclusion... Am I still looking for bugs or can it be
>that the engine just have a very high BF, and this gives it small chances of
>finding the solution?

Hard to tell, I guess. :)

What you could do is to take your posted 5 positions and - if the engine fails
to see them - try to find out in how many plies your engine theoretically
_should_ see them. And if it doesn't, investigate further. For example, one of
the positions was a mate in 4 - your engine should find this mate in either 7 or
8 plies, depending on your qsearch-algorithm (do you recognize mates in qsearch)
etc. If you have check-extensions, you should find it earlier. You can do
similar things for tactical positions. (find minimal depth and check whether the
engine finds it)

Don't let the very high BF fool you too much though. I guess it's pretty normal
at the beginning. :) I like to compare my BF with other weak engines like TSCP.
That at least gives me an idea, whether I'm completely wrong and I have a bug or
it's just 'normal'. :)

Good luck!


This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.