Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: What's best low BF or good WAC result?

Author: Albert Bertilsson

Date: 11:37:19 03/18/03


I just want to publish my findings with WAC and Sharper, as I've written
previously Sharper managed a bad 195 out of 300 in WAC.

Running test with the 105 failed positions gave this:

Adding check extensions 69 of 105 solved, great! But adding check extensions
really lowers the BF because a lot of extending is done on a single meaningless
check. In Sharpers built in test node count rise with almost 40% =(.

So I add code to only extend on two checks or more, and I get this:
52 out of 105 problems solved. Node count in the test rise with about 2%.

Clearly check extension are great to have.

But they are not so great to have most of the game when they don't manage to
give any better result. So I'm thinking maybe turn on check extensions in the
end game, and have the two check rule during the rest of the game. However, this
won't help much as many of the positions in WAC are not end game positions (at
least not by Sharpers measure).

It all comes down to, what's best low BF or high WAC result? What do you think
about extension rules based on game phase?

I know that 53 or 36 failed positions is not anyway near the results you
consider good, but remember that Sharper is weak engine with lot of work still
to do. (And I'll do it, just give me some time)

/Regards Albert

This page took 0.01 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.