Author: Gordon Rattray
Date: 09:27:09 11/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 2001 at 10:47:25, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On November 09, 2001 at 10:44:53, William Penn wrote: > >>Maybe, maybe not, I >>have no idea. But my main interest is accurate analysis, so it is a serious >>fault to me. > >If you need _accurate_ analysis, you should never use anything >but the first move from the PV anyway. > >If you let it search to depth n, the second move is based on a >n-1 depth search. The third one on an n-2 depth search. The moves >at the end are quite often outright blunders. > >-- >GCP I accept your reasoning about the moves becoming less accurate as the PV goes deeper. However, why do you regard the first ply as "accurate" but the second ply as inaccurate? Surely it should never taper off so dramatically, especially if the search depth is 17 plys or so?! I think what's being highlighted here is *outright blunders* early in the PV in relation to the search depth. If its a bug, it should be fixed. If it's a design decision to optimise performance, then the PV should not be displayed for moves that may not represent the engines calculations. Gordon
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.