Author: Aaron Tay
Date: 18:24:18 06/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2002 at 14:10:17, Steve Coladonato wrote: >On June 26, 2002 at 12:51:05, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>On June 26, 2002 at 07:26:10, Steve Coladonato wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>> And say I also want to have the analysis go to 11 ply. >> >>And that's exactly the point where you go wrong. It makes not much sense to want >>to have the analysis go to 11 ply. Maybe what you want is to have an analysis >>where the engine sees all tactical combinations within 6 moves or something like >>that. But a 11 ply search doesn't necessarily do that - it depends on the >>engine. It also depends on the position, and what not. >> >>If you want to analyze a game and you don't want to spend more than X seconds >>per position, do exactly that - limit the time the engine should take for a >>position accordingly. >> >>Sargon > >There is a threshold where the engines take a major factor to get to the next >depth in their analysis. If I know that an engine can do an 11 ply search in N >minutes then I can set my time accordingly. However, if I just limit the time >to say 3 minutes, the engine may only be capable of getting to ply 8 in that >time. So I've wasted an analysis because the depth is too shallow. I'm looking >for the threshold where getting to the next depth is just not worth the >exorbitant amount of time to get there. You want something like an "estimated time to reach next depth" ? I wonder how accurate such estimates if possible would be.. How about estimated possibility of changing it's mind when it finishes this ply?
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.