at that time you never mentioned anything like "what a coincidence, it's the same exact problem as in my set". we even discussed many of the problems with exchange sacs, comparing the CTS continuations with yours. I always assumed you took them from CTS based on that, and you never said otherwise. However, you did ask on the CTS board if the problems were available for use, and shortly after that had a huge problem set which 'miraculously' looked exactly like the CTS set, only with the aforementioned problematic continuations. if anyone likes it better, by all means knock yourself out. I have no problems with people preferring CT over CTS. like I said, I've always known you had only good intentions with writing your site. Richard.thanks for taking the time to explain where CT currently is. They are all extracted from publicly available PGN records of real games (as are the CTS problems), so there will naturally be som ed off the CTS problem set are both offensive and false. Your claims that I've essentially ripped off the CTS problem set are both offensive and false.įirstly, there are ZERO problems on Chess Tempo that are taken from CTS. I'm happy to debate the merits of CTS versus Chess Tempo, they both certainly have their pros and cons, but please try and stick to the facts. The 5% is only a rough estimate, as it was based on a fairly small sampling of problems, it could be quite a bit smaller or larger (although I did try to be fair on my sample and include problems across a wide rating range). That thread lists a small number of them, my sampling indicates that around 5% of their problems have these issues, I suspect users don't notice them 5% of the time, partly because problems with these types of ambiguities tend to get higher ratings (I know, because on Chess Tempo when I had these types of ambiguous problems, they tended to become quite high rated). If you have doubts about the level of ambiguity in CTS problems, I suggest you look at the CTS problems linked to in this post:ĬTS has hundreds of problems where there are moves which are clearly winning, that if played will fail the problem. 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)
