Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 12:52:38 08/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2000 at 12:44:46, Will Singleton wrote: >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. > This isn't possible with mtd engines. Yeah, I know there aren't many. >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 I like to see the score with either + or - prepended. But I also prefer 1.13 to 1.1 <shrug> Cheers Andrew
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.