Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 23:08:01 05/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2000 at 01:59:57, Michael Neish wrote:
>
>>Consider two programs which both reach 9 plies searched, but one has quiescent
>>search, SEE, and various extensions and the other does not. Again, the
>>definition is misleading. I would like to see a definition like this:
>>1. minply {due to NULL-move, etc) is the shallowest actual search depth (IOW
>>brute force depth)
>>2. aveply {is the actual search depth with assumption that NULL move or
>>whatever pruning mechanism is sound}
>>3. maxply {due to extensions, quiescent search, etc} is the maximum depth
>>actually visited.
>
>I see, so you're saying that some programs might be measuring different things
>... I didn't think of that. I would have expected the number of times that
>Search() had been called iteratively as the definition of ply depth, and assumed
>everyone was doing the same.
>
>I remember playing Hiarcs against a (non-commercial) program that was searching
>about twice as deep and still got smashed.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike.
The "value" of a ply differs for each program. It "mainly" has to do with
extensions although other things are important also. If a program extends
many moves it will produce a lower ply depth than a program that uses few
extensions. This is just one example.
Ed
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.