Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:38:12 01/20/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2006 at 21:34:45, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >On January 20, 2006 at 01:46:06, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 19, 2006 at 23:49:59, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >> >>>On January 19, 2006 at 13:47:05, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On January 19, 2006 at 12:23:51, Stuart Cracraft wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi - I have reached the limit of what I can test with Fred Reinfeld's >>>>>Win-at-Chess suite of 300 positions. Not that I couldn't improve more >>>>>points on it - but that many retests reach a plateau that does not >>>>>change much. >>>>> >>>>>So, I want to expand to these suites: >>>>> >>>>> WAC >>>>> 1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices >>>>> 1001 Brilliant Ways to Mate >>>>> ECO Middlegames >>>>> ECO Endgames >>>>> >>>>>and any others you think reasonable and prudent. My goal is a single >>>>>overnight 8 hour test at a few seconds per position - folded into >>>>>a single result with per-suite specifics as well. >>>>> >>>>>My issue is where to get the above in EPD format with the solution(s) included >>>>>in each EPD entry. >>>>> >>>>>I think with the larger set plus my current adding of chess knowledge to >>>>>terminal nodes, I will be able to make new progress in new areas and >>>>>not be "WAC-blind" to it. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks ahead if you know of where I can get the above or other (better) >>>>>suites. >>>> >>>>Most test suites are full of bugs. >>>>Yuriy Lyapko has a bunch of carefully debugged ones. >>>>You might ask him about it. >>>>http://www.geocities.com/lyapko/index.html >>> >>>I notice you have an extremely large selection of test suites at >>> >>>http://cap.connx.com/EPD/ >>> >>>Are you saying that none of these has relatively accurate solutions >>>so as to be usable in chess program testing? >> >>I do not know the accuracy of most of the tests. I have spent some time >>verifying some of the easy ones like WAC, but they are of limited usefulness. >> >>For any of the test sets, I expect at least 80% of the answers to be valid. >> >>ECM-GCP is verified fairly well. You could consider it as an alternative. > >Thanks - it's now test #2 for TeeDee - ran with it at 1 and 5 seconds. Looks >much more challenging. What does the GCP stand for? Gian-Carlo Pascutto
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.