Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:03:14 06/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 2003 at 12:22:44, Les Fernandez wrote: >On June 10, 2003 at 11:12:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 10, 2003 at 03:34:27, Les Fernandez wrote: >> >>>On June 09, 2003 at 21:46:43, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On June 06, 2003 at 11:27:27, Les Fernandez wrote: >>>> >>>>>I have an experiment I would like to run using the entire set of WAC positions. >>>>>Can someone send me the epd strings for the entire set and then I was wondering >>>>>if when I am done with them if someone would be interested in running the entire >>>>>set. I think we may find some interesting results when I am done with them. >>>> >>>>It's been done by many people, including myself >>> >>>Hi Dann, >>>I am aware that alot of work has been done with them but I am not aware of all >>>the tpyes of things that have been tried. >>> >>>> >>>>Are you sure you want to reproduce that information again? >>> >>>Hmmm when you say reproduce it again Dann what exactly has been done? >>> >>>> >>>>What time control are you interested in? >>> >>>I was going to ask you about the time setting Dann. Perhaps if you can provide >>>me with some data that has already been generated that might help me decide on a >>>time. Basically I would be interested to see the right number of solutions >>>(from the 300 set) with respect to time. How is it done? Does one set a total >>>time and then see how many of the 300 positions his engine can solve or is it >>>based on a constant set time per position? Also Dann in your opinion which >>>engine seems to score well on the 300 positions and what kind of hardware was it >>>running on? >>> >>>Although I will have to give it some thought I am not necessarily interested in >>>the best engine. I am more interested I think in finding a time somewhere in >>>between the best and the worst case scenarios. Will have to think about that. >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>>Les >> >> >>I have a test run from an older version, 60 seconds per move, that got 300 >>correct on a 21264 / 600mhz alpha. Recent versions will not solve #230, >>but get the rest in under 60 seconds on my dual xeon 2.8. Here is a run >>at 10 seconds per move on my dual 2.8 xeon: > >Hi Bob, > >First thx for the stats. Let me ask you for your opinion about this test set. >I mentioned the WAC set since I know many people use it as a gauge to see how >their engines are performing. I think that most of the positions are too easy. There are a lot of mate in 2 that are no problem for programs to solve. I think that most programmers use harder tests when the WAC test may be used only to test for bugs(if the program does not solve something it may be because of a bug). When you mention that your engine solved 299 of >300 positions at 60 second time interval does that mean that each position was >subjected to 60 seconds or did some only use 30 seconds and some longer and then >you took an average or did you just give all positions 60 seconds. There are a lot of cases when the program can find a mate in less than a second. What I would >like to do is see if the set that I create gets to some of the solutions faster >or slower. I do not understand what you ask for. Uri
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.