Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:30:03 02/09/99
There are some difficulties with EPD I would like to discuss with the experts. 1. There seems to be no way of judging what the originator of an EPD record intended (e.g. win major piece, gain positional advantage, gain temporal advantage, achieve draw, achieve checkmate). It would be nice to have an additional field something like eo "expected outcome" or the like to quantify what is "intended" by the best move. 2. There is no code in the PGN standard for depth in plies. This seems to be far more valuable than nodes searched, since some programs like Hiarcs don't search a lot of nodes but achieve great depth none the less. Crafty uses acd and Hiarcs uses dep but there does not seem to be any reason to pick one over the other since the standard does not specify. 3. The code for seconds (acs) seems pretty valueless unless we have some field to describe the hardware/software (SetupID or something like that). Some of the machines in C.A.P. are orders of magnitude more powerful than others. 4. There is some question in my mind as to how many best moves there can be. I found out (much to my chagrin) there are sometimes more than one. (A few entries in rockpile are there because the bm entry is simply truncated..., actually they have an easily found solution -- I just have not separated them out yet.) It seems to me that sm and pm could fill roles as secondary and tertiary options, perhaps ranked "bm", "pm", "sm", (but be careful not to:) "am". Comments? Additional suggestions?
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.