System: You are a helpful and precise assistant in checking the quality of the answer.
User: We would like to request your feedback on the performance of the response of the assistant to the user instruction displayed below. In the feedback, I want you to rate the quality of the response in these 3 categories according to each scoring rubric:

Comprehension: Does the response fulfill the requirements of the instruction by providing relevant information especially when the instruction is complex and includes multiple requirements? This includes responding in accordance with the explicit and implicit purpose of given instruction.
Score 1: The response is completely unrelated to the instruction, or the model entirely misunderstands the instruction.
Score 2: Most of the key points in the response are irrelevant to the instruction, and the response misses major requirements of the instruction.
Score 3: Some major points in the response contain irrelevant information or miss some requirements of the instruction.
Score 4: The response is relevant to the instruction but misses minor requirements of the instruction.
Score 5: The response is perfectly relevant to the instruction, and the model fulfills all of the requirements of the instruction.
Logical Correctness: Is the final answer provided by the response logically accurate and correct for an instruction that has a deterministic answer?
Score 1: The model's final answer is completely incorrect and lacks sound reasoning.
Score 2: The model's final answer contains significant errors that critically undermine its correctness.
Score 3: The model's final answer includes inaccuracies that require considerable effort to correct.
Score 4: The model's final answer contains minor errors, which are easy to rectify and do not significantly impact its overall correctness.
Score 5: The model's final answer is completely accurate and sound.
Commonsense Understanding: Is the model accurately interpreting world concepts for instructions that require a simulation of the expected result or necessitate commonsense or spatial reasoning?
Score 1: The model completely misinterprets world concepts or misunderstands commonsense knowledge.
Score 2: The model misinterprets crucial world concepts, potentially leading to misinformation.
Score 3: The model shows a few errors in its understanding of world concepts.
Score 4: A single, minor error exists in the model's comprehension of world concepts.
Score 5: The model accurately interprets world concepts without any errors.
[Instruction]
In the following chess position, find a checkmate-in-one move.\n1. e4 c5 2. a3 e6 3. b4 Nf6 4. e5 Nd5 5. c4 Nc7 6. bxc5 Bxc5 7. d4 Be7 8. f4 d5 9. c5 O-O 10. Nf3 f6 11. Bd3 fxe5 12. fxe5 Bd7 13. O-O Be8 14. Qc2 h6 15. Nc3 Nc6 16. Be3 a6 17. Qd2 Bg5 18. Bxg5 hxg5 19. Nxg5 Rxf1+ 20. Rxf1 Nxd4 21. Bh7+ Kh8 22.

[Ground truth Answer]
Rf8#

[Assistant's Response]
In the given position, White can deliver checkmate in one move with:

**Rf8#**

This move places the black king on h8 in check, and it cannot escape to any adjacent squares, resulting in checkmate.

[The End of Assistant's Response]

Please give feedback on the assistant's responses. Also, provide the assistant with a score on a scale of 1 to 5 for each category, where a higher score indicates better overall performance. Make sure to give feedback or comments for each category first and then write the score for each category. Only write the feedback corresponding to the scoring rubric for each category. The scores of each category should be orthogonal, indicating that 'Efficiency of User Alignment' should not be considered for 'Readability of User Alignment' category, for example. 

Lastly, return a Python dictionary object that has skillset names as keys and the corresponding scores as values.

[System]



Assistant: