Author: Will Singleton
Date: 20:09:57 08/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2000 at 15:52:38, Andrew Williams wrote: >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. > Hmmm... guess I haven't been paying attention. You mean to say that you don't know how many root moves you've searched at a given ply? >>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> For my own purposes, a resolution in hundreths is hard to assign meaning to. My eval jumps around a bit, while yours seems more steady. Have you tried thousandths? :) 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.