Author: Eelco de Groot
Date: 06:00:32 11/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 10, 1999 at 00:16:39, Dann Corbit wrote: >On November 09, 1999 at 23:12:05, blass uri wrote: >>On November 09, 1999 at 19:41:02, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>On November 09, 1999 at 10:51:00, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>It's indeed more complex than that. Set [Chessknowledge = 500] and NPS >>>>will go down, set [Selective Search = 001] and NPS will drop even more. >>>> >>>>Changing one parameter in Rebel (which isn't available for the user) and >>>>NPS will go up with a factor 3-4 which means Rebel would go over 1,000,000 >>>>NPS on a fast PC. >>>> >>>>The bottom line is that NPS (like ply-depth) is pretty meaningless. >>>I think that ply depth is an excellent indicator of understanding of the >>>position unless the program has bugs. That is to say, if one program finds a >>>best move at ply 10, so will the other most of the time. >> >>No because the extensions are not the same. >>Chessmaster6000 often can see at depth 3 things that other programs cannot see >>at depth 10. >> >>The brute force depth of chessmaster6000 is often not more than 4 at tournament >>time control. >>Chessmaster show 2 numbers and I understand that the first number is the brute >>force depth and the second number is the selective search depth. >>The default personality(tested by ssdf) has the parameter ss=6 >> >>If I see numbers like 4/10 the meaning(if I understand right) is that it looks >>at everything at depth 4,almost everything at depth 10 and does also extensions >>after it. > >That just means (to me) that they are not reporting the depth in plies but >something of their own measure. I also think that there can be two ply >measures: > >0. Actual depth in plies for exhaustive search (less pruning, nullmove...) >1. Speculative plies (capture extensions, check extensions, etc...) > >If we have a clear indication for both of these measures then I think that >programs would agree on the results most of the time. If someone has something >else and they call it a ply you cannot make any predictions because of that. Sure Dann, but I think those speculative plies by extensions vary enormously according to implementation, type of position, of extensions, of timecontrol, probably of time still allotted to the present plydepth, maybe of amount of hashspace still available and probably a lot of other things too... For instance with the Rebel engine for ECTool I thought I saw that it reached a certain plydepth much faster than Rebel 9, but that didn't mean it solved all positions that much faster. Tactical things it often saw faster but such a 'mainly tactical' search -I'm speculating quite a bit- with more selection and a smaller eval probably mean that you see some positional moves closer to the root a little later? Don't you often see large differences in solution times for different programs even if they are of almost equal strength overall? Just my view, Eelco
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.