Author: Steve Coladonato
Date: 08:54:55 06/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 2002 at 07:39:35, Sven Reichard wrote: >On June 24, 2002 at 07:35:53, Steve Coladonato wrote: > >>There is a post concerning a test position and some analysis by Junior and >>Shredder. I was curious if there has been a compilation of Depth vs. Time by >>Engine for some of these test positions where the hardware is the same (or >>really close to being the same). I'm not so curious as to whether a solution >>was found, just how long it takes to get to the depth. From the posts, it looks >>like it took Junior about 1 hour to reach Depth 21 while it took Shredder about >>1 hour to reach Depth 15. But I don't know if its apples vs. apples with the >>hardware. >> >>Thanks. >> >>Steve > >IMHO it is apples vs. pears even on the same hardware. All programs use some >sort of extensions and/or pruning, so the nominal depth is a rather artificial >variable. > >Sven. The nominal depth may be "artificial" because of the extensions and pruning but would it not be a gauge of how well the alogrithms/heuristics are doing in the evaluation? I understand from the other replies that Junior counts "plies" differently, but do not the other programs use the term ply equivalently (I don't know if that's a word or not)? I do know that if you chase an evaluation down the variation the score can become much different near the end of the variation. So would not a deeper ply depth also be an indicator for the correctness of at least the initial part of the variation? Steve
This page took 0.01 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.