Author: margolies,marc
Date: 14:42:09 11/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
Thank you for your response,Scott. When I study a single position aa EPD, I usually go at least 100,million nodes sometimes as high as 350,million which is roughly 17 or 18 ply. What I do basically is watch for changes in the first two moves of both sides in the pv. when at this depth the pv.completely stabilizes then I an satisfied my answer is accurate. Regarding the specifices of your response, the choice at 10,thousand nodes is very stable, but changes forcing new evaluations then occur at 300-400,thousand nodes, which I prefer to analyze to some clarity. I suppose that were I examining later stage middlegame positions, your recommendations may be truer to my results. Sometimes I read a game between strong players and 'see a better move.' Since I do not believe my self about this, I let deep analysis help my resolution. And, not surprisingly, the longer I run an engine, the better the master's eval looks but often it looks very poor at start-- and sometimes it stays poor for a long time. On November 09, 2003 at 07:49:15, scott farrell wrote: >On November 06, 2003 at 00:56:09, margolies,marc wrote: > >It all depends in the accuracy you are after. It will be accurate after only a >few hundred nodes, unless there are come specific tactical moves. > >Most modern engines find simple tactics in a few thousand nodes. > >In a million nodes most obvious tactics are overcome. > >If an engine cant see a tactic in 10 mill nodes, it is unlikely to find it. > >If you are analysing full games, use a small number of nodes, and if the score >jumps, keep the hashtable and go back and redo a few nodes deeper to see the >earliest point you can pick up the tactic. > >Scott > >>When examining a position deeply with an engine, say for the purposes of placing >>the evaluation of the position within a tree of candidate variations, how many >>millions of nodes of testing are necessary in order to get the closest >>approximation to that engines best numerical assessment of a chess position and >>its roughly corresponding possible variation move sequence? >>Is there a numerical methods heuristic, or some other rule of thumb which I >>might chose to use to attack the certainty issue? Maybe a statistical >>regression? Should it be engine specific (and correlative to the kinds of >>positions under assessment) or generic? >>I welcome any suggestions here. Thanks-Marc
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.