Author: Will Singleton
Date: 09:44:46 08/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2000 at 08:06:00, Brian Richardson wrote: >I think the information that many programs report, such as depth, score, PV, >etc) is helpful to see, and appreciate most programs doing so (particuarly when >their operators are online, or even some that have lists of opponents to >automatically kibitz). > >However, each program reports in a different manner. I would like to propose >_some_ reporting uniformity. I am not suggesting that standardizing _all_ >information and formats should be attempted. > >In particular, the search "depth" seems like a good place to start. Depth can >mean several different things. I would like to propose a depth reporting format >as follows: > >ply x(y/z) where x is the last full width (normal search) ply _completed_, >z is the deepest with extensions, and z is the absolute deepest ply reached >(typically in q-search). > I assume you mean y = deepest with extensions. I don't know about standardizing. I sort of like to compare the different formats, you get to know the idiosyncrasies of each after awhile. Your format is unique I think, kind of verbose. Others give a single number, like d=8, which is too sparse. I like my method (surprise :)), that gives the depth reached plus number of ply 1 moves examined at that depth. That shows exactly where in the ply the search terminated. I also like the score shown with a bit less resolution (1.1 rather than 1.13). Less is more. I should also fix my kib feature. Will
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.