Author: Les Fernandez
Date: 10:23:56 06/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 2003 at 13:03:14, Uri Blass wrote: >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. Hi Uri, Hmmm for some reason I was not aware that this set was easy to solve. You may be right then Uri that this might not be a good set to work with. Any idea what set I could maybe take a look at? I would prefer a set that has been run often enough to have reasonable stats as to how long it took to actaully find the solution to use as my baseline. I think the set that is decided on should also be available in pgn format. As I mentioned to Bob I should at the end compare the pgn files since this would show me at what time this preferred move was recommended and would allow me to see if the solution was arrived at faster or slower then what has been done in the past. Thanks, Les > >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.