2q1r2k/5R1p/pp1B2pN/2p1P3/1n1b4/3P2Q1/1P4K1/8 w - - bm Qh4; id "5.IQ.931";
i let several strong engines evaluate this position for a "long" time, with and without NNUE or MultiPV .. those modern engines prefer bm Qf3, not Qh4 ..
it's a difficult tricky position.
should we adjust a list like IQ.epd by re-validating all their bm's, "judged" by older engines ?
or is this position just an exception ?
-simple is not always best but best is always simple-
Until a position has been driven to checkmate and all other moves have been proven draws or losses, it is always possible that there are better or equal moves. And test sets that were once challenging like WAC become trivial over time.
There is a great deal of effort spent in this forum to refine test sets. Vincent Lejeune and Jon Dart's test sets are constantly refined.
A test set I worked on years ago (STS) has been greatly improved recently through the efforts of many. When I first started working on STS in 2008, I was using 32 bit engines like Rybka (and two others for verification) at one hour per position. Today's best engines would get vastly superior analysis after one second on modern hardware. Both the hardware and the software will be roughly 32000 times stronger, so a billion times better analysis today.
Fifteen years from today, the current hardware and software will be one billion times better than today's as well, making our current analysis moot, other than things that are literally proven (like Chest319 output without fancy pruning in play).
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
Qh4 seems like a threat to Black's King that you may make as a poor player like me, the solution move Qf3 not so much. So I liked the explanation (from Sam Davis) especially if this testset is for humans and maybe this problem was copied from some chessbook for humans that they misinterpreted for the testset later (making it a bm) but it does seem very careless that I agree.
Qh4 clearly not good says Crystal in best four moves:
[d]2q1r2k/5R1p/pp1B2pN/2p1P3/1n1b4/3P2Q1/1P4K1/8 w - -
Engine: Crystal 6 PMT (512 MB)
gemaakt door the Stockfish developers (see AUTHORS f
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
Hello, seriously, I do not know really who, I just know he is not Stockfish. Look at the 'Full name' field at right.
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
