Sometimes you can find a move that might have deserved a 'try again', especially in early endgame positions where the engine can't see far enough ahead to notice that the move would be winning, but these positions are rare and much more common on CTS (where the engine appears to only use 5 seconds per position compared to many times that on Chess Tempo). In any case, ambiguity is currently pretty much a solved problem on Chess Tempo these days. Chess Tempo tends to target harder problems than CTS, especially for CTS users who are solving for accuracy instead of rating on CTS (and therefore get very low ratings), so the obvious move is much less commonly correct on Chess Tempo, usually because of a non-obvious opponent response that refutes the more obvious, but incorrect move. It's not uncommon for CTS users to blame the problems instead of their flawed solution when they first start using Chess Tempo. I'm a bit confused about these other conversations you say we had, is there a link to them somewhere so I can refresh my memory? To my knowledge, we have only ever interacted twice, once on the CTS message board where I posted to refute similar incorrect statements about ambiguity (to which you didn't reply), and an earlier solitary post you made on Chess Tempo reporting what turned out to be a UI bug (not a problem set ambiguity issue), just after the site started over 2 years ago. You were certainly one of the first Chess Tempo users, and I imagine the original problem set probably left a bad taste in your mouth. Ambiguous problems are now either removed at the generation stage or alternative winning lines give the user a 'try again' message, allowing them to continue to look for the 'best move', without failing the problem. The idea that finding 'the best' move should be good enough and that all other moves fail was clearly flawed, and the site was changed to deal with this well over a year ago (June 2008). The initial Chess Tempo problem set did contain many ambiguous problems where a second best (but still winning answer) would get you marked wrong. I've never asked to use the CTS set, and had started writing Chess Tempo well before I bumped into CTS (although I did notice CTS before releasing the first public version of Chess Tempo ,and borrowed their excellent idea of rating problems against people using glicko). I doubt the overlap is that large, but I've not done any calculations to estimate the number. They are all extracted from publicly available PGN records of real games (as are the CTS problems), so there will naturally be some overlap (which is perhaps the source of your misconception). I'd like to address a few misconceptions you appear have regarding the Chess Tempo problem set.įirstly, there are ZERO problems on Chess Tempo that are taken from CTS.
0 kommentar(er)
