10943 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Does anyone know what the rating of Stockfish is at various search depths (from 1 to 20 ply). I'm interesting in the ratings on a "human scale", not compared to other engines.
I can't give a specific answer for Stockfish but in a quick Google search this older article came up. For the older engines mentioned they mention 150-200 rating points per ply. Not sure how accurate that really is but it is a very interesting question.
Thanks. Yes, I've read that article too. But I'm guessing it's different today.
Another question I find interesting, related to this is: would it be possible to write a chess engine with a search depth of only 6 ply, but still being able to play at master level. I've read that most of the time even GM don't look move than 3 moves (6 ply) ahead. Still, they play at a rather high level. I expect this to be thanks to their positional understanding. Maybe an engine could be written to "think" in this "more human kind of way"?
It would probably be pretty easy to do a repeat of some of the types of experiments listed in the article. Using something like this (depending on how accurate that table is) and maybe Arena on a decent machine. Just would take a bit of time and a little number crunching :D
I don't know on the second question. I'm not very knowledgeable about engines (haven't done a lot of research). A quick search turns up that Rebel claims to have a "deep positional understanding". Maybe some others have a similar set of programming and could play strongly at a low ply. Don't know for sure.
It seems that a hard ply depth limitation would be a handicap. While GMs may only look ahead 6 ply in most positions, there are some where the look farther ahead, and it is possible that there are some positions where at 6 ply the move is great but at 8 it is bad.
Interesting table. Didn't know these numbers. Thanks.
It would take a lot of time. We are talking about thousands of games, if we want our results to be statistically significant.
I'm sure a search depth limitation would be a handicap, but it would be interesting to see how strong an engine could become, with a search depth limitation of e.g. 6 ply. Then, when it doesn't get any stronger, the search depth could be increased.
Where has all the etiquette gone?
by harryz a few minutes ago
what does chess help you improve?
by StMichealD 3 minutes ago
Chess or No Chess? Which is the BEST?
by StMichealD 5 minutes ago
How do I beat a 2000+?
by SmyslovFan 8 minutes ago
Is Aronian overrated
by chessmicky 12 minutes ago
Ashley's Million-dollar chess tourney - but bring your own clocks
by ashikuzzaman 14 minutes ago
7/31/2014 - To The Left
by chess11223344556677 27 minutes ago
The olympiad prediction thread!!!
by ebillgo 33 minutes ago
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by Chicken_Monster 39 minutes ago
My OTB experience
by chessmicky 43 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!