Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:24:16 01/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2000 at 03:37:19, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 13, 2000 at 01:11:19, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >[snip] >>For #1, I don't think the key is finding Nxh6. The key is to find that it is >>winning, namely by finding 2. Nf5! If they play Nxh6 with a -1 eval or so (as >>all the programs on your page were doing), and follow up with inferior moves, >>they are still going to lose. The test is really about finding _winning_ moves, >>and IMO, you must find that the move is winning to have really solved any of >>these positions. > >This is a bone of contention with me as well. If an eval shows -1000 and the >right move is chosen, it means nothing if the eval should be +1000. I think >there should also be a minimal ce value for important tests to know if they >really found the move. It would also remove a loophole used by some programs to >"exit early" as soon as they happen to hit the right move (for any reason -- >without regard to ce). "LOOK HOW FAST WE SOLVE THE TEST!!" Sure, but your >program thought it was losing on 40% of the answers. >:-( I am not sure if you are talking about me, but when I post/publish test results, I _never_ "early exit". I put the early exit feature into my test code to make debugging more pleasant. IE if I hit and hold the key move for N plies, where N can be specified, then I can stop and go on to the next one. This turns a 1 minute per position win at chess run into a 3 minute deal, rather than a 300 minute deal. Which lets me sanity check an extension modification quickly. But for real test results, I _always_ search every position for the specified amount of time to be sure that it doesn't change. Bob
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.