Author: Steve Coladonato
Date: 08:28:03 06/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 2002 at 13:10:49, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On June 24, 2002 at 11:54:55, Steve Coladonato wrote: > >>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)? > >No. The amount of work that is done for each ply is different for each >program. Plies are not comparable. > >>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? > >You cannot compare plies, hence your last question makes no >sense. You keep saying this but a ply is a ply and if program X reports a score at ply depth M and program Y reports a score at ply depth M then there is a comparison to be made here. If programs are interpreting "ply" differently than that's a programming issue not a user issue. Steve > >-- >GCP
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.