Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 23:01:37 08/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2000 at 23:03:49, Will Singleton wrote: >On August 26, 2000 at 16:12:45, Peter McKenzie 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. >> >>I prefer to show DEPTH COMPLETED, plus the number of root moves searched at the >>next depth. I think that depth completed is a pretty universal thing. Alot of >>programs don't show how much has been done at the next search depth, partly >>because this can be complicated by re-searches etc. >> >>In general, I think it would be great to agree on a standard format and a >>standard set of information to be presented. >> > >Sure, if possible. But it may be that different folks see what's important in >different ways. > >So, when you display 7.10 depth, that means you've searched seven full ply, plus >10 root moves of the eighth ply? Correct > When I display 7/10 depth, it means I've >searched six full ply, plus 10 root moves of the seventh ply. That is, I >terminated the search at ply 7, move 10. That seems like the proper way to do >it. I was under the impression that the convention was the opposite, and that people were most interested in completed ply. > >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.